Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 221 / Friday, November 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 64529 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 2 and 13 

RIN 3150–AH74 

Use of Electronic Submissions in 

Agency Hearings; Correction 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

final rule appearing in the Federal 

Register on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 

49139), that requires the use of 

electronic submissions in all agency 

hearings, consistent with the existing 

practice for the high-level radioactive 

waste repository application. This 

document is necessary to correct two 

typographical errors. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

November 16, 2007, and is applicable to 

October 15, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darani Reddick, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, telephone 301–415–3841, e-mail 

dmr@nrc.gov, or Steven Hamrick, Office 

of the General Counsel, telephone 301–

415–4106, e-mail sch1@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

published, the final regulations contain 

errors which may prove to be 

misleading and need to be clarified. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Classified information, 

Confidential business information, 

Freedom of information, Hazardous 

waste, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power 

plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sex 

discrimination. 

10 CFR Part 13 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties. 

■ Accordingly, 10 CFR part 2 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendment: 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE FOR 

DOMESTIC LICENSING PROCEEDINGS 

AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 

953, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2231); sec. 

191, as amended, Pub. L. 87–615, 76 Stat. 409 

(42 U.S.C. 2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 552; sec. 

1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). 

Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 

62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 

933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 

U.S.C. 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 

2135); sec. 114(f); Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 

2213, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10143(f); sec. 

102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 

U.S.C. 5871). Sections 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 

2.105, 2.321 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 

104, 105, 183i, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 

954, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 

2134, 2135, 2233, 2239). Section 2.105 also 

issued under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 

(42 U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.200–2.206 also 

issued under secs. 161b, i, o, 182, 186, 234, 

68 Stat. 948–951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), (i), (o), 2236, 

2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (42 U.S.C. 

5846). Section 2.205(j) also issued under Pub. 

L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 90, as amended by 

section 3100(s), Pub. L. 104–134, 110 Stat. 

1321–373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note). Subpart C 

also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 

U.S.C. 2239). Sections 2.600–2.606 also 

issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 

Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332). 

Section 2.301 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 554. 

Sections 2.343, 2.346, 2.712, also issued 

under 5 U.S.C. 557. Section 2.340 also issued 

under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 

2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 

2.390 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133) and 5 U.S.C. 

552. Sections 2.800 and 2.808 also issued 

under 5 U.S.C. 553. Section 2.809 also issued 

under 5 U.S.C. 553, and sec. 29, Pub. L. 85–

256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

2039). Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 

68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. 

L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). 

§ 2.4 [Corrected] 

■ 2. In the definition for ‘‘participant,’’

in the second sentence, remove 

‘‘§ 2,315(b)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘§ 2.315(c).’’

PART 13—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL 

REMEDIES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 13 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Public Law 99–509, secs. 6101–

6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (31 U.S.C. 3801–3812); 

sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 

note). Sections 13.13 (a) and (b) also issued 

under section Pub. L. 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, 

as amended by section 31001(s), Pub. L. 104–

134, 110 Stat. 1321–373 (28 U.S.C. 2461 

note). 

§ 13.2 [Corrected] 

■ 4. In the definition for ‘‘participant,’’

in the second sentence, remove 

‘‘§ 2,315(b)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘§ 2.315(c).’’

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day 

of November 2007. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–22378 Filed 11–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 21 and 29 

[Docket No. SW015; Special Condition No. 

29–015–SC] 

Special Conditions: DynCorp 

International, Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC), Project Number 

ST2902RC–R, Installation of Pratt & 

Whitney Canada PT6–67D Engine With 

Full Authority Digital Engine Control 

(FADEC) on Global Helicopter 

Technology, Inc. (GHTI), Restricted 

Category Model UH–1H Helicopters, 

Type Certificate (TC) Number 

R00002RC 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special condition; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This special condition is 

issued for Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC), Project Number 

ST2902RC–R, for the installation of a 

Pratt and Whitney PT6–67D Turbine 

Engine on Global Helicopter Technology 

Inc. (GHTI), Restricted Category, U.S. 

Army military surplus helicopters, 

Model UH–1H, type certificated under 

type certificate (TC) R00002RC. The 

installation of the PT6–67D on the 

Restricted Category UH–1H will have a 

novel or unusual design feature 

associated with the installation of the 

Full Authority Digital Engine Control 

(FADEC). The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards to protect 

systems that perform critical control 

functions from the effects of a highintensity radiated field (HIRF). This 

special condition contains the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

ensure that critical control functions of 

systems will be maintained when 

exposed to HIRF. 

DATES: The effective date of this special 

condition is November 7, 2007. We 

must receive your comments by January 

15, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies 

of your comments to: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket 

(ASW–111), Docket No. SW015, Fort 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
64530 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 221 / Friday, November 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Worth, Texas 76193–0111. You may 

deliver two copies to the Rotorcraft 

Directorate at the above address. You 

must mark your comments: Docket No. 

SW015. You can inspect comments in 

the Rules Docket weekdays, except 

Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 

4 p.m. The Rules Docket for special 

conditions is maintained at the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 

448, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tyrone D. Millard, FAA, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, 

Fort Worth, Texas 76193–0110; 

telephone 817–222–5439, fax 817–222–

5961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

has determined that notice and 

opportunity for prior public comment 

hereon are unnecessary because the 

substance of this special condition has 

been subject to the public comment 

process in several prior instances with 

no substantive comments received. We 

are satisfied that new comments are 

unlikely. The FAA therefore finds that 

good cause exists for making this special 

condition effective upon issuance. 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, views, or data. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special condition, 

explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

about this special condition. You can 

inspect the docket before and after the 

comment closing date. If you wish to 

review the docket in person, go to the 

address in the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We will consider all 

comments we receive by the closing 

date for comments. We will consider 

comments filed late if it is possible to 

do so without incurring additional 

expense or delay. We may change this 

special condition based on the 

comments we receive. 

If you want us to let you know we 

received your comments on this special 

condition, send us a pre-addressed, 

stamped postcard on which the docket 

number appears. We will stamp the date 

on the postcard and mail it back to you. 

Background 

On January 9, 2007, DynCorp 

International applied for an STC for the 

installation of a Pratt & Whitney PT6–

67D Turbine Engine on the GHTI, U.S. 

Army UH–1H, Restricted Category 

Helicopter, type certificated under Type 

Certificate R00002RC. This UH–1H 

Restricted Category helicopter is a 

utility/heavy lift helicopter with a twobladed teetering main rotor system. It is 

to be powered by a single Pratt and 

Whitney PT6–67D engine that 

incorporates a full authority digital 

engine control (FADEC). The maximum 

gross weight of the aircraft is 9,500 

pounds. 

Supplemental Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 

21.101, DynCorp International must 

show that the Engine Installation meets 

the applicable provisions of the 

regulations as listed below: 

• 14 CFR part 29 as amended through 

and including Amendment 29–1, 

effective August 12, 1965. 

• 14 CFR part 29.1529, Instructions 

for Continued Airworthiness, 

Amendment Number 20, effective 

September 11, 1980. 

In accordance with 14 CFR part 

36.1(a)(4), compliance with the noise 

requirements was not shown for the 

aircraft. Therefore, the engine 

installations under this supplemental 

type certificate are only eligible for 

external load operations excepted by 

§ 36.1(a)(4) and defined under 

§ 133.1(b). Any alteration to the aircraft 

for special purpose not identified above 

will require further FAA approval and 

in addition, may require noise testing, 

flight testing, or a combination of noise 

and flight testing. 

In addition, the certification basis 

includes an equivalent safety finding 

pertaining to a limitation associated 

with repetitive high torque cycle events 

that is not relevant to this special 

condition. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this STC because of 

a novel or unusual design feature, 

special conditions are prescribed under 

the provisions of § 21.16. 

The FAA issues special conditions as 

defined in § 11.19, and issued in 

accordance with § 11.38, and they 

become part of the STC certification 

basis under § 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model, the 

modification, or a combination of the 

model and the modification for which 

they are issued. Should this STC be 

revised to include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design feature, this special condition 

would also apply to the other model 

under the provisions of § 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The GHTI UH–1H Restricted Category 

Helicopter with a Pratt & Whitney PT6–

67D engine installed will incorporate 

the following novel or unusual design 

features: Electrical, electronic, or a 

combination of electrical and electronic 

(electrical/electronic) systems, 

specifically a FADEC, that will be 

performing critical control functions for 

the continued safe flight and landing of 

the helicopter. A FADEC is an electronic 

device that performs the critical 

functions of engine control during flight 

operations. 

Discussion 

The DynCorp International 

installation of the PT6–67D in the UH–

1H helicopter, at the time of application, 

was identified as incorporating an 

electronic FADEC system. After the 

design is finalized, DynCorp 

International will provide the FAA with 

a preliminary hazard analysis. This 

analysis will identify the critical control 

functions that are required for safe flight 

and landing that are performed by the 

FADEC system. 

Recent advances in technology have 

given rise to the application in aircraft 

designs of advanced electrical/ 

electronic systems that perform critical 

control functions. These advanced 

systems respond to the transient effects 

of induced electrical current and voltage 

caused by HIRF incidents on the 

external surface of the helicopter. These 

induced transient currents and voltages 

can degrade the performance of the 

electrical/electronic systems by 

damaging the components or by 

upsetting the systems’ functions. 

Furthermore, the electromagnetic 

environment has undergone a 

transformation not envisioned by the 

current application of § 29.1309(a). 

Higher energy levels radiate from 

operational transmitters currently used 

for radar, radio, and television. Also, the 

number of transmitters has increased 

significantly. 

Existing aircraft or alteration 

certification requirements are 

inappropriate in view of these 

technological advances. In addition, the 

FAA has received reports of some 

significant safety incidents and 

accidents involving military aircraft 

equipped with advanced electrical/ 

electronic systems when they were 

exposed to electromagnetic radiation. 

The combined effects of the 

technological advances in helicopter 

design and the changing environment 

have resulted in an increased level of 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 221 / Friday, November 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 64531 

vulnerability of the electrical/electronic 

systems required for the continued safe 

flight and landing of the helicopter. The 

design and installation of these systems 

will provide effective measures to 

protect this engine installation on this 

helicopter against the adverse effects of 

exposure to HIRF. The following 

primary factors contributed to the 

current conditions: (1) Increased use of 

sensitive electronics that perform 

critical control functions; (2) reduced 

electromagnetic shielding afforded 

helicopter systems by advanced 

technology airframe materials; (3) 

adverse service experience of military 

aircraft using these technologies; and (4) 

an increase in the number and power of 

radio frequency emitters and the 

expected increase in the future. 

On July 30, 2007, we issued a final 

HIRF rule (72 FR 44016, August 6, 

2007). This rule provides standards to 

protect aircraft electrical and electronic 

systems from HIRFs. It was effective 

September 5, 2007. However, that rule 

included provisions that provide relief 

from the new testing requirements for 

equipment previously certificated under 

HIRF special conditions issued in 

accordance with 14 CFR § 21.16. To 

obtain this relief, the applicant must be 

able to—

(1) Provide evidence that the system 

was the subject of HIRF special 

conditions issued before December 1, 

2007; 

(2) Show that there have been no 

system design changes that would 

invalidate the HIRF immunity 

characteristics originally demonstrated 

under the previously issued HIRF 

special conditions; and 

(3) Provide the data used to 

demonstrate compliance with the HIRF 

special conditions under which the 

system was previously approved. 

DynCorp’s FADEC installation is 

eligible for this relief provided in 14 

CFR § 29.1317(d) of the final HIRF rule. 

However, to meet their HIRF 

requirements, they must comply with 

this Special Condition, which is based 

on similar, historical HIRF protections 

requirements. 

These special conditions will require 

the systems that perform critical control 

functions, as installed in the aircraft, to 

meet certain standards based on either 

a defined HIRF environment or a fixed 

value using laboratory tests. 

The applicant may demonstrate that 

the operation and operational 

capabilities of the installed electrical/ 

electronic systems that perform critical 

control functions are not adversely 

affected when the aircraft is exposed to 

the defined HIRF test environment. The 

FAA has determined that the test 

environment defined in Table 1 is 

acceptable for critical control functions 

in helicopters. 

The applicant may also demonstrate 

by a laboratory test that the electrical/ 

electronic systems that perform critical 

control functions can withstand a peak 

electromagnetic field strength in a 

frequency range of 10 KHz to 18 GHz. 

If a laboratory test is used to show 

compliance with the defined HIRF 

environment, no credit will be given for 

signal attenuation due to installation. A 

level of 200 volts per meter (v/m) is 

more appropriate for critical functions 

during VFR operations. Laboratory test 

levels are defined according to RTCA/ 

DO–160D Section 20 Category Y (200 

v/m and 300 mA). As defined in DO–

160D Section 20, the test levels are 

defined as the peak of the root means 

squared (rms) envelope. As a minimum, 

the modulations required for RTCA/ 

DO–160D Section 20 Category Y will be 

used. Other modulations should be 

selected as the signal most likely to 

disrupt the operation of the system 

under test, based on its design 

characteristics. For example, flight 

control systems may be susceptible to 3 

Hz square wave modulation while the 

video signals for electronic display 

systems may be susceptible to 400 Hz 

sinusoidal modulation. If the worst-case 

modulation is unknown or cannot be 

determined, default modulations may be 

used. Suggested default values are a 1 

KHz sine wave with 80 percent depth of 

modulation in the frequency range from 

10 KHz to 400 MHz and 1 KHz square 

wave with greater than 90 percent depth 

of modulation from 400 MHz to 18 GHz. 

For frequencies where the unmodulated 

signal would cause deviations from 

normal operation, several different 

modulating signals with various 

waveforms and frequencies should be 

applied. 

Applicants must perform a 

preliminary hazard analysis to identify 

electrical/electronic systems that 

perform critical control functions. The 

term ‘‘critical control’’ means those 

functions whose failure would 

contribute to or cause an unsafe 

condition that would prevent the 

continued safe flight and landing of the 

helicopter. The FADEC system 

identified by the hazard analysis as 

performing critical control functions is 

required to have HIRF protection. 

Compliance with HIRF requirements 

will be demonstrated by tests, analysis 

models, similarity with existing 

systems, or a combination of these 

methods. The two basic options of 

either testing the FADEC system to the 

defined environment or laboratory 

testing may not be combined. The 

laboratory test allows some frequency 

areas to be undertested and requires 

other areas to have some safety margin 

when compared to the defined 

environment. The areas required to have 

some safety margin are those shown, by 

past testing, to exhibit greater 

susceptibility to adverse effects from 

HIRF; and laboratory tests, in general, 

do not accurately represent the aircraft 

installation. Service experience alone 

will not be acceptable since such 

experience in normal flight operations 

may not include an exposure to HIRF. 

Reliance on a system with similar 

design features for redundancy, as a 

means of protection against the effects 

of external HIRF, is generally 

insufficient because all elements of a 

redundant system are likely to be 

concurrently exposed to the radiated 

fields. 

The modulation that represents the 

signal most likely to disrupt the 

operation of the system under test, 

based on its design characteristics 

should be selected. For example, flight 

control systems may be susceptible to 3 

Hz square wave modulation. If the 

worst-case modulation is unknown or 

cannot be determined, default 

modulations may be used. Suggested 

default values are a 1 KHz sine wave 

with 80 percent depth of modulation in 

the frequency range from 10 KHz to 400 

MHz, and 1 KHz square wave with 

greater than 90 percent depth of 

modulation from 400 MHz to 18 GHz. 

For frequencies where the unmodulated 

signal would cause deviations from 

normal operation, several different 

modulating signals with various 

waveforms and frequencies should be 

applied. 

Acceptable system performance 

would be attained by demonstrating that 

the critical control function components 

of the system under consideration 

continue to perform their intended 

function during and after exposure to 

required electromagnetic fields. 

Deviations from system specifications 

may be acceptable but must be 

independently assessed by the FAA on 

a case-by-case basis. 

TABLE 1.—FIELD STRENGTH VOLTS/ 

METER

Frequency Peak Average 

10–100 KHz .............. 150 150 

100–500 KHz ............ 200 200 

500–2000 KHz .......... 200 200 

2–30 MHz ................. 200 200 

30–100 MHz ............. 200 200 

100–200 MHz ........... 200 200 

200–400 MHz ........... 200 200 

400–700 MHz ........... 730 200 

700–1000 MHz ......... 1400 240 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES
64532 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 221 / Friday, November 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—FIELD STRENGTH VOLTS/ 

METER—Continued 

Frequency Peak Average 

1–2 GHz ................... 5000 250 

2–4 GHz ................... 6000 490 

4–6 GHz ................... 7200 400 

6–8 GHz ................... 1100 170 

8–12 GHz ................. 5000 330 

12–18 GHz ............... 2000 330 

18–40 GHz ............... 1000 420 

Applicability 

As discussed previously, this special 

condition is applicable to Supplemental 

Type Certificate (STC) Project Number 

ST2902RC–R, for the installation of a 

Pratt & Whitney PT6–67D turbine 

engine in GHTI UH–1H military surplus 

helicopters type certificated under TC 

R00002RC. Should DynCorp 

International apply at a later date for a 

change to the STC to include another 

model incorporating the same novel or 

unusual design feature, the special 

condition would apply to that STC 

modification as well under the 

provisions of § 21.101. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only certain novel 

or unusual design features associated 

with this STC project. It is not a rule of 

general applicability and affects only 

the applicant who applied to the FAA 

for approval of these features on the 

helicopter. 

The substance of this special 

condition has been subjected to a notice 

and comment period in several prior 

instances and has been derived without 

substantive change from those 

previously issued. It is unlikely that 

prior public comment would result in a 

significant change from the substance 

contained herein. For this reason, the 

FAA has determined that prior public 

notice and comment are unnecessary, 

and good cause exists for adopting this 

special condition upon issuance. The 

FAA is requesting comments to allow 

interested persons to submit views that 

may not have been submitted in 

response to the prior opportunities for 

comment. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 21 and 

29 

Aircraft, Air transportation, Aviation 

safety, Rotorcraft, Safety. 

The authority citation for this special 

condition is as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 

106(g), 40105, 40113, 44701–44702, 44704, 

44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303. 

The Special Condition 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the following special 

condition is issued as part of the 

supplemental type certification basis for 

STC Project ST2902RC–R, installation of 

PT6–67D on Global Helicopter 

Technology, Inc. (GHTI), Model UH–1H, 

Restricted Category Helicopters, type 

certificated under TC R00002RC. 

Protection for Electrical and 

Electronic Systems From High Intensity 

Radiated Fields. 

1. Each system that performs critical 

control functions must be designed and 

installed to ensure that the operation 

and operational capabilities of these 

critical control functions are not 

adversely affected when the helicopter 

is exposed to high intensity radiated 

fields external to the helicopter. 

2. For the purpose of this special 

condition, critical control functions are 

defined as those functions, whose 

failure would contribute to, or cause, an 

unsafe condition that would prevent the 

continued safe flight and landing of the 

aircraft. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 

7, 2007. 

Mark R. Schilling, 

Acting Manager, Aircraft Certification 

Service, Rotorcraft Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 07–5698 Filed 11–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–0076; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–241–AD; Amendment 

39–15246; AD 2007–22–10] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A330–200, A330–300, A340–200, A340–

300, A340–500, and A340–600 Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a 

typographical error in an existing 

airworthiness directive (AD) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 1, 2007 (72 FR 61796). The 

error resulted in an error in an airplane 

series number identified in Table 2 of 

the AD. This AD applies to all Airbus 

Model A330–200, A330–300, A340–200, 

A340–300, A340–500, and A340–600 

series airplanes. This AD requires 

repetitive detailed visual inspections for 

cracking of the LH (left hand) and RH 

(right hand) wing MLG (main landing 

gear) rib 6 aft bearing lugs, and repair or 

replacement of the MLG rib 6 fitting, if 

necessary. 

DATES: Effective November 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is the Document 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 227–2797; fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 24, 2007, the FAA issued AD 

2007–22–10, amendment 39–15246 (72 

FR 61796, November 1, 2007), for all 

Airbus Model A330–200, A330–300, 

A340–200, A340–300, A340–500, and 

A340–600 series airplanes. The AD 

requires repetitive detailed visual 

inspections for cracking of the LH (left 

hand) and RH (right hand) wing MLG 

(main landing gear) rib 6 aft bearing 

lugs, and repair or replacement of the 

MLG rib 6 fitting, if necessary. 

As published, Table 2 of the AD states 

that certain repetitive inspection 

intervals apply to Model ‘‘A300–300 

series airplanes, except WV27.’’ That 

sentence contains a typographical error 

and, instead, should state that those 

repetitive inspection intervals apply to 

Model ‘‘A340–300 series airplanes, 

except WV27.’’

No other part of the regulatory 

information has been changed; 

therefore, the final rule is not 

republished in the Federal Register. 

The effective date of this AD remains 

November 16, 2007. 

§ 39.13 [Corrected] 

■ In the Federal Register of November 

1, 2007, on page 61799, Table 2 of AD 

2007–22–10 is corrected to read as 

follows: 

* * * * * 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with RULES