45644 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

other sites noted in the preimplantation 

written directive. 

(iv) A dose to the skin or an organ or 

tissue other than the treatment site 

exceeding by 0.5 Sv (50 rem) and by 50 

percent or more the dose expected to 

that site if the administration had been 

carried out as specified in the 

preimplantation written directive. 

(v) A dose that exceeds 0.05 Sv (5 

rem) effective dose equivalent, 0.5 Sv 

(50 rem) to an organ or tissue, or 0.5 Sv 

(50 rem) shallow dose equivalent to the 

skin from any of the following—

(A) An administration of the wrong 

radionuclide; 

(B) An administration by the wrong 

route of administration; 

(C) An administration to the wrong 

individual or human research subject; 

(D) An administration delivered by 

the wrong mode of treatment; or 

(E) A leaking sealed source. 

(3) An error in calculating the total 

source strength for permanent implant 

brachytherapy documented in the 

preimplantation written directive that 

resulted in an administered total source 

strength that delivered a dose differing 

by more than 20 percent from the 

intended dose to the treatment site. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

3The commercial telephone number of the 

NRC Operations Center is (301) 816–5100. 

* * * * * 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day 

of July 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–18014 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0834; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–SW–78–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta 

S.p.A. Model A109A and A109A II 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a 

superseding airworthiness directive 

(AD) for the specified Agusta S.p.A. 

(Agusta) model helicopters. This 

proposed AD results from a revised 

mandatory continuing airworthiness 

information (MCAI) originated by an 

aviation authority to identify and 

correct an unsafe condition on an 

aviation product. The aviation authority 

of Italy, with which we have a bilateral 

agreement, reports that the previous 

MCAI should not apply to newly 

redesigned and improved tail rotor 

blades. This action proposes the same 

inspection requirements as the current 

AD but would limit the applicability to 

only three part-numbered tail rotor 

blades. The proposed AD would require 

actions that are intended to prevent 

fatigue failure of a tail rotor blade 

(blade), loss of a tail rotor, and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 5, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M–

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

You may get the service information 

identified in this AD from Agusta, 

21017 Cascina Costa di Samarate (VA) 

Italy, Via Giovanni Agusta 520, 

telephone 39 (0331) 229111, fax 39 

(0331) 229605–222595. 

Examining the AD Docket: 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 proposed 

AD, the economic evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations 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: 

Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations 

and Guidance Group, Fort Worth, Texas 

76193–0111, telephone (817) 222–5122, 

fax (817) 222–5961. 

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–2008–0834; Directorate Identifier 

2007–SW–78–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 based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.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 

Ente Nazionale Per L’Aviazione Civile 

(ENAC), which is the Aviation 

Authority for Italy, has issued an MCAI 

in the form of ENAC AD No. 2006–001, 

Revision 1, dated January 3, 2006 

(referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to 

correct an unsafe condition for the 

Italian-certificated product. The aviation 

authority of Italy, with which we have 

a bilateral agreement, reports that this 

MCAI cancels Registro Aeronautico 

Italiano AD 1999–325, which was our 

basis for issuing FAA AD 99–27–12. 

They state that the AD should not apply 

to certain newly redesigned and 

improved blades. You may obtain 

further information by examining the 

MCAI and the service information in the 

AD docket. 

Relevant Service Information 

Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico 

No. 109–110, Revision A, dated 

December 12, 2005 (BT). The actions 

described in the MCAI are intended to 

correct the same unsafe condition as 

that identified in the BT. Agusta advises 

that the inspection for cracks should 

only apply to blades, part number (P/N) 

109–0132–02–11/–15/–121 with 400 or 

more flight hours and not to new blade, 

P/N 109–0132–02–125, because it was 

designed and certified with improved 

structural characteristics. The BT 

continues to stress the importance of 

performing a detailed inspection of the 

subject blades for cracks already 

prescribed in Telegraphic Technical 

Bulletin No. 109–5, dated January 27, 

1987. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of Italy, and is 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45645 

approved for operation in the United 

States. Pursuant to our bilateral 

agreement with this State of Design 

Authority, we have been notified of the 

unsafe condition described in the MCAI 

and service information. We are 

proposing this AD because we evaluated 

all pertinent information and 

determined an unsafe condition exists 

and is likely to exist or develop on other 

products of the same type designs. 

Differences Between the AD and the 

MCAI 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. The 

MCAI states to comply with the 

manufacturer’s BT. This AD differs from 

the incorporated portions of the BT as 

follows: 

(1) We refer to the compliance time as 

hours time-in-service rather than flight 

hours. 

(2) We do not require you to contact 

the manufacturer. 

These differences are highlighted in 

the ‘‘Differences Between the FAA AD 

and the MCAI’’ section in the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 40 helicopters of U.S. 

registry. We also estimate that it would 

take about 2.5 work-hours to inspect the 

affected blades of each helicopter at an 

average labor rate of $80 per work-hour. 

The cost of performing the daily 

magnifying glass visual inspection is 

negligible. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the cost of the proposed AD on 

U.S. operators to be $48,000, assuming 

6 dye-penetrant inspections a year, the 

cost of performing the daily magnifying 

glass inspection is negligible, and no 

cracked blades are found. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared an economic 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, 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 AD 99–27–12, Amendment 

39–11493, Docket No. 99–SW–91–AD 

(65 FR 346, January 5, 2000), and by 

adding the following new AD: 

Agusta S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA–2008–0834; 

Directorate Identifier 2007–SW–78–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

September 5, 2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 99–27–12, 

Amendment 39–11493, Docket No. 99–SW–

91–AD. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model A109A and 

A109A II helicopters, with a tail rotor blade 

(blade), part number (P/N) 109–0132–02–11, 

–15, and –121, with 400 or more hours timein-service (TIS), installed, certificated in any 

category. 

Reason 

(d) Based on the Italian mandatory 

continued airworthiness information (MCAI) 

AD, this action contains the same 

requirement as superseded AD 99–27–12 but 

narrows the applicability from blade, P/N 

‘‘109–0132–02–all dash numbers,’’ to specific 

P/Ns ‘‘109–0132–02–11, –15, and –121.’’

Thus, this action does not apply to blades 

with any other P/N, including newlydesignated blade, P/N 109–0132–02–125. The 

actions specified by this AD are intended to 

continue the requirements to prevent fatigue 

failure of a blade, loss of a tail rotor, and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Required as indicated, unless already 

done, do the following actions. 

(1) Before further flight, dye-penetrant 

inspect each blade for a crack by following 

the Compliance Instructions, Part I, of Agusta 

S.p.A. Bollettino Tecnico No. 109–110, 

Revision A, dated December 12, 2005 (BT). 

Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 

hours TIS, dye-penetrant inspect each blade 

for a crack by following the Compliance 

Instructions, Part III, of the BT. If you find 

a crack, replace the cracked blade with an 

airworthy blade before further flight. 

(2) Before the first flight each day, visually 

inspect each blade for a crack using a 3 to 

5 power magnifying glass by following the 

Compliance Instructions, Part II, of the BT. If 

you find a crack, replace the cracked blade 

with an airworthy blade before further flight. 

Differences Between the FAA AD and the 

MCAI 

(f) The MCAI states to comply with the 

manufacturer’s BT. This AD differs from the 

incorporated portions of the BT as follows: 

(1) We refer to the compliance time as 

hours TIS rather than flight hours. 

(2) We do not require you to contact the 

manufacturer. 

Other Information 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, 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: 

Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76193–0111, telephone (817) 

222–5122, fax (817) 222–5961. 

Related Information 

(h) Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness 

Information (MCAI) ENAC AD No. 2006–001, 

Revision 1, dated January 3, 2006, contains 

related information. 

Subject 

(i) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 6410: Main Rotor Blades. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
45646 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 6, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1Enhanced Disclosure and New Prospectus 

Delivery Option for Registered Open-End 

Management Investment Companies, Securities Act 

Release No. 8861 (Nov. 21, 2007) [72 FR 67790 

(Nov. 30, 2007)]. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 27, 

2008. 

Mark R. Schilling, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–17992 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 230, 232, 239, and 274 

[Release Nos. 33–8949; IC–28346; File No. 

S7–28–07] 

RIN 3235–AJ44 

Enhanced Disclosure and New 

Prospectus Delivery Option for 

Registered Open-End Management 

Investment Companies 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission is reopening the period for 

public comment on amendments it 

originally proposed in Securities Act 

Release No. 8861 (Nov. 21, 2007) [72 FR 

67790 (Nov. 30, 2007)]. The rule 

proposal would, if adopted, require key 

information to appear in plain English 

in a standardized order at the front of 

the mutual fund prospectus; and permit 

a person to satisfy its mutual fund 

prospectus delivery obligations under 

section 5(b)(2) of the Securities Act of 

1933 by sending or giving the key 

information directly to investors in the 

form of a summary prospectus and 

providing the statutory prospectus on an 

Internet Web site. 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before August 29, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/proposed.shtml); 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

No. S7–28–07 on the subject line; or 

• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Florence E. Harmon, Acting 

Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to File No. 

S7–28–07. This file number should be 

included on the subject line if e-mail is 

used. To help us process and review 

your comments more efficiently, please 

use only one method. The Commission 

will post all comments on the 

Commission’s Internet Web site (http:// 

www.sec.gov). Comments are also 

available for public inspection and 

copying in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received 

will be posted without change; we do 

not edit personal identifying 

information from submissions. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah D. Skeens, Senior Counsel, 

Office of Disclosure Regulation, 

Division of Investment Management, at 

(202) 551–6784, Securities and 

Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, 

NE., Washington, DC 20549–5720. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) is reopening the period 

for public comment on proposed rule 

and form amendments that are intended 

to enhance the disclosures that are 

provided to mutual fund investors. 

These amendments were proposed on 

November 21, 2007,1 and the comment 

period initially closed on February 28, 

2008. The Commission’s proposal 

would, if adopted, require key 

information to appear in plain English 

in a standardized order at the front of 

the mutual fund statutory prospectus. 

The proposals also would permit a 

person to satisfy its mutual fund 

prospectus delivery obligations under 

Section 5(b)(2) of the Securities Act of 

1933 by sending or giving the key 

information directly to investors in the 

form of a summary prospectus and 

providing the statutory prospectus on an 

Internet Web site. Upon an investor’s 

request, mutual funds would also be 

required to send the statutory 

prospectus to the investor. 

The Commission recently engaged a 

consultant to conduct focus group 

interviews and a telephone survey 

concerning investors’ views and 

opinions about various disclosure 

documents filed by companies, 

including mutual funds. During this 

process, investors participating in focus 

groups were asked questions about, 

among other things, a hypothetical 

summary prospectus. Investors 

participating in the telephone survey 

were asked questions relating to several 

disclosure documents, including mutual 

fund prospectuses. We have placed in 

the comment file (available at http:// 

www.sec.gov) for the proposed rule the 

following documents from the investor 

testing that relate to mutual fund 

prospectuses and the proposed 

summary prospectus: (1) The 

consultant’s report concerning focus 

group testing of the hypothetical 

summary prospectus and related 

disclosures; (2) transcripts of focus 

groups relating to the hypothetical 

summary prospectus and related 

disclosures; (3) disclosure examples 

used in these focus groups; and (4) an 

excerpt from the consultant’s report 

concerning the telephone survey of 

individual investors. In order to provide 

all persons who are interested in this 

matter an opportunity to comment on 

these additional materials, we believe 

that it is appropriate to reopen the 

comment period before we take action 

on the proposal. 

We invite additional comment on the 

proposal in light of these materials, and 

on any other matters that may have an 

effect on the proposal. 

Accordingly, we will extend the 

comment period until August 29, 2008. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: July 31, 2008. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–18036 Filed 8–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 275 

[Release Nos. 34–58264; IC–28345; IA–2763 

File No. S7–22–08] 

RIN 3235–AJ45 

Commission Guidance Regarding the 

Duties and Responsibilities of 

Investment Company Boards of 

Directors With Respect to Investment 

Adviser Portfolio Trading Practices 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed guidance; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission is publishing for comment 

this proposed guidance to boards of 

directors of registered investment 

companies to assist them in fulfilling 

their fiduciary responsibilities with 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS