Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69291 

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): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2005–22973; 

Directorate Identifier 2004–NM–67–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The Federal Aviation Administration 

must receive comments on this AD action by 

December 15, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model 

A330–201, –202, –203, –223, and –243 

airplanes; A330–301, –321, –322, –323, –341, 

–342, –343 airplanes; A340–211, –212, and 

–213 airplanes; A340–311, –312, and –313 

airplanes; A340–541 airplanes; and A340–

642 airplanes; certificated in any category. 

Note 1: This AD requires revisions to 

certain operator maintenance documents to 

include new inspections. Compliance with 

these inspections is required by 14 CFR 

91.403(c). For airplanes that have been 

previously modified, altered, or repaired in 

the areas addressed by these inspections, the 

operator may not be able to accomplish the 

inspections described in the revisions. In this 

situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), 

the operator must request approval for an 

alternative method of compliance according 

to paragraph (h) of this AD. The request 

should include a description of changes to 

the required inspections that will ensure the 

continued damage tolerance of the affected 

structure. The FAA has provided guidance 

for this determination in Advisory Circular 

(AC) 25–1529. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a revision to 

subsection 9–1 of the Airbus A330 and A340 

Maintenance Planning Documents (MPD) for 

Life Limits/Monitored parts, and subsection 

9–2 of the Airbus A330 MPD for 

Airworthiness Limitations Items. We are 

issuing this AD to ensure the continued 

structural integrity of these airplanes. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Airworthiness Limitations Revision 

(f) Within 3 months after the effective date 

of this AD, revise the Airworthiness 

Limitations section (ALS) of the Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness by 

incorporating into the ALS the documents in 

paragraph (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD, as 

applicable. 

(1) Document AI/SE–M4/95A.0089/97, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations Items,’’ Issue 12, 

dated November 1, 2003, Section 9–2 of the 

Airbus A330 Maintenance Planning 

Document (MPD). 

(2) Section 9–1, ‘‘Life Limits/Monitored 

parts,’’ Revision 05, dated April 7, 2005, of 

the Airbus A330 and A340 MPDs. 

(g) Except as provided by paragraph (h) of 

this AD: After the actions in paragraph (f) of 

this AD have been accomplished, no 

alternative inspections or inspection 

intervals may be approved for the structural 

elements specified in the documents listed in 

paragraph (f) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested in accordance with 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Related Information 

(i) French airworthiness directives F–

2004–024, dated February 18, 2004; F–2005–

069, dated April 27, 2005; and F–2005–070, 

dated April 27, 2005; also address the subject 

of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 7, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22588 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22873; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–197–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier 

Model CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet 

Series 100 & 440) Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Bombardier Model CL–600–

2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 

airplanes. This proposed AD would 

require replacing the Camloc fasteners 

on the sidewall of the center pedestal. 

This proposed AD results from reports 

of the Camloc fasteners on the sidewall 

of the center pedestal disengaging and 

interfering with an inboard rudder 

pedal. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent these fasteners from disengaging 

and interfering with an inboard rudder 

pedal, which could reduce directional 

controllability of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 15, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses 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. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, 

Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, 

Station Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec 

H3C 3G9, Canada, for service 

information identified in this proposed 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Parrillo, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE–

172, FAA, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 

11590; telephone (516) 228–7305; fax 

(516) 794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘FAA–2005–22873; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–197–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those 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 AD. 

Using the search function of that Web 

69292 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in 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.). 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. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

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

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the airworthiness 

authority for Canada, notified us that an 

unsafe condition may exist on certain 

Bombardier Model CL–600–2B19 

(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 

airplanes. TCCA advises that it has 

received several reports of the Camloc 

fasteners on the sidewall of the center 

pedestal fully disengaging and 

interfering with an inboard rudder 

pedal. In one incident, the rudder 

jammed during an approach due to a 

disengaged Camloc fastener that 

restricted movement of the pilot’s 

inboard rudder pedal and tow brake. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

reduce directional controllability of the 

airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

Bombardier has issued Service 

Bulletin 601R–31–030, Revision F, 

dated September 1, 2005. The service 

bulletin describes procedures for 

replacing, with screws and nut plate 

assemblies, the Camloc fasteners on the 

left and right sidewalls of the center 

pedestal. Accomplishing the actions 

specified in the service information is 

intended to adequately address the 

unsafe condition. TCCA mandated the 

service information and issued 

Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

2004–23R1, dated July 18, 2005, to 

ensure the continued airworthiness of 

these airplanes in Canada. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

This airplane model is manufactured 

in Canada and is 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. Pursuant to 

this bilateral airworthiness agreement, 

TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the 

situation described above. We have 

examined TCCA’s findings, evaluated 

all pertinent information, and 

determined that we need to issue an AD 

for airplanes of this type design that are 

certificated for operation in the United 

States. 

Therefore, we are proposing this AD, 

which would require accomplishing the 

actions specified in the service 

information described previously. 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

718 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

proposed actions would take about 1 

work hour per airplane, at an average 

labor rate of $65 per work hour. 

Required parts would cost about $135 

per airplane. Based on these figures, the 

estimated cost of the proposed AD for 

U.S. operators is $143,600, or $200 per 

airplane. 

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 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the 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. See the ADDRESSES section 

for a location to examine the regulatory 

evaluation. 

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 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): 

Docket No. FAA–2005–22873; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–197–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by December 15, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model 

CL–600–2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) 

airplanes, certificated in any category, serial 

numbers 7003 through 7986 inclusive. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from reports of the 

Camloc fasteners on the sidewall of the 

center pedestal disengaging and interfering 

with an inboard rudder pedal. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent these fasteners from 

disengaging and interfering with an inboard 

rudder pedal, which could reduce directional 

controllability of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69293 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Replacement of Fasteners 

(f) Within 5,500 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD, replace, with screws 

and nut plate assemblies, the Camloc 

fasteners on the left and right sidewalls of the 

center pedestal, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 601R–31–030, Revision F, 

dated September 1, 2005. 

Actions Accomplished Previously 

(g) Replacing fasteners before the effective 

date of this AD in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of one of the 

issues of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R–

31–030 identified in Table 1 of this AD is 

acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD. 

TABLE 1.—PREVIOUS SERVICE BULLETIN REVISIONS ACCEPTABLE FOR

COMPLIANCE

Issue of Bombardier 

service bulletin 

601R–31–030 

Date 

Original ........................... June 22, 2004. 

Revision A ...................... Oct. 6, 2004. 

Revision B ...................... Nov. 4, 2004. 

Revision C ...................... Dec. 15, 2004. 

Revision D ...................... June 16, 2005. 

Revision E ...................... July 7, 2005. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in 

accordance with the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

Related Information 

(i) Canadian airworthiness directive CF–

2004–23R1, dated July 18, 2005, also 

addresses the subject of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 4, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22590 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Part 542 

RIN 3141–AA27 

Minimum Internal Control Standards 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule revisions. 

SUMMARY: In response to the inherent 

risks of gaming enterprises and the 

resulting need for effective internal 

controls in Tribal gaming operations, 

the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (Commission or NIGC) first 

developed Minimum Internal Control 

Standards (MICS) for Indian gaming in 

1999, which have subsequently been 

revised. The Commission recognized 

from the outset that periodic technical 

adjustments and revisions would be 

necessary in order to keep the MICS 

effective in protecting Tribal gaming 

assets and the interests of Tribal 

stakeholders and the gaming public. To 

that end, the following proposed rule 

revisions contain certain proposed 

corrections and revisions to the 

Commission’s existing MICS, which are 

necessary to clarify, improve, and 

update other existing MICS provisions. 

The purpose of these proposed MICS 

revisions is to address apparent 

shortcomings in the MICS and various 

changes in Tribal gaming technology 

and methods. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 30, 2005. After consideration 

of all received comments, the 

Commission will make whatever 

changes to the proposed revisions that 

it deems appropriate and then 

promulgate and publish the final 

revisions to the Commission’s MICS 

Rule, 25 CFR part 542. 

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to 

‘‘Comments Proposed MICS Rule 

Revisions, National Indian Gaming 

Commission, 1441 L Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20005, Attn: Acting 

General Counsel, Penny J. Coleman.’’

Comments may be transmitted by 

facsimile to (202) 632–7066. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vice-Chairman Nelson Westrin, (202) 

632–7003 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 5, 1999, the Commission 

first published its Minimum Internal 

Control Standards (MICS) as a Final 

Rule. As gaming Tribes and the 

Commission gained practical experience 

applying the MICS, it became apparent 

that some of the standards required 

clarification or modification to be 

effective, operate as the Commission 

had intended, and accommodate 

changes and advances in gaming 

technology and methods. 

Consequently, the Commission, 

working with an Advisory Committee 

composed of Commission and 

nominated Tribal representatives, 

published the new final revised MICS 

rule on June 27, 2002. Based on the 

practical experiences of the Commission 

and Tribes working with the newly 

revised MICS, it has once again become 

apparent that additional corrections, 

clarifications, and modifications are 

needed to ensure that the MICS 

continue to be effective and operate as 

the Commission intended. To identify 

which of the current MICS need 

correction, clarification or modification, 

the Commission initially solicited input 

and guidance from NIGC employees, 

who have extensive gaming regulatory 

expertise and experience and work 

closely with Tribal gaming regulators in 

monitoring the implementation, 

operation, and effect of the MICS in 

Tribal gaming operations. The resulting 

input from NIGC staff convinced the 

Commission that the MICS require 

continuing review and prompt revision 

on an ongoing basis to keep them 

effective and up-to-date. To address this 

need, the Commission decided to 

establish a Standing MICS Advisory 

Committee to assist it in both 

identifying and developing necessary 

MICS revisions on an ongoing basis. 

In recognition of its government-togovernment relationship with Tribes, 

and related commitment to meaningful 

Tribal consultation, the Commission 

asked gaming Tribes in January of 2004 

for nominations of Tribal 

representatives to serve on its Standing 

MICS Advisory Committee. From the 

twenty-seven (27) Tribal nominations 

that it received, the Commission 

selected nine (9) Tribal representatives 

in March 2004 to serve on the 

Committee. The Commission’s Tribal 

Committee member selections were 

based on several factors, including the 

regulatory experience and background 

of the individuals nominated; the size(s) 

of their affiliated Tribal gaming 

operation(s); the types of games played 

at their affiliated Tribal gaming 

operation(s); and the areas of the 

country in which their affiliated Tribal 

gaming operation(s) are located. The 

selection process was very difficult 

because numerous highly qualified 

Tribal representatives were nominated 

to serve on this important Committee. 

As expected, the benefit of including