Federal Register: December 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 241)
DOCID: FR Doc E6-21268
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
CFR Citation: 14 CFR Part 39
Docket ID: [Docket No. FAA-2006-25645; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-201-AD; Amendment 39-14857; AD 2006-25-16]
RIN ID: RIN 2120-AA64
NOTICE: RULES
ACTION: Airworthiness directives:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600), CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R) Airplanes
DATES: This AD becomes effective January 19, 2007.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of January 19, 2007.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier Model CL6001A11 (CL600), CL6002A12 (CL601), and CL 6002B16 (CL6013A and CL6013R) airplanes. This AD requires
implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either
by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance
inspection program to include a CPCP. This AD results from the
determination that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit
indications of corrosion. We are issuing this AD to prevent structural
failure of the airplane due to corrosion.
SUMMARY:
Bombardier,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Examining the Docket
You may examine the airworthiness directive (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) 6475227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Discussion
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Bombardier Model CL6001A11 (CL600), CL6002A12 (CL601), and CL6002B16 (CL6013A and CL6013R) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48487). That NPRM proposed to require implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance inspection program to include a CPCP.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the development of this AD. We have considered the comments received. Request To Change Incorporation of Certain Information
The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) states that, typically, airworthiness directives are based on service information originating with the type certificate holder or its suppliers. MARPA adds that manufacturer service documents are privately authored instruments generally having copyright protection against duplication and distribution. MARPA notes that when a service document is incorporated by reference into a public document, such as an airworthiness directive, it loses its private, protected status and becomes a public document. MARPA adds that if a service document is used as a mandatory element of compliance, it should not simply be referenced, but should be incorporated into the regulatory document; by definition, public laws must be public, which means they cannot rely upon private writings.
MARPA adds that incorporated by reference service documents should
be made available to the public by publication in the Docket Management
System (DMS), keyed to the action that incorporates them. MARPA notes
that the stated purpose of the incorporation by reference method is
brevity, to keep from expanding the Federal Register needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected
[[Page 75414]]
individuals; traditionally, ``affected individuals'' means aircraft
owners and operators, who are generally provided service information by
the manufacturer. MARPA adds that a new class of affected individuals
has emerged, since the majority of aircraft maintenance is now
performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft owners and operators.
MARPA notes that this new class includes maintenance and repair
organizations, component servicing and repair shops, parts purveyors
and distributors, and organizations manufacturing or servicing
alternatively certified parts under section 21.303 (``Replacement and
modification parts'') of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.303). MARPA adds that the concept of brevity is now nearly archaic
as documents exist more frequently in electronic format than on paper.
Therefore, MARPA asks that the service documents deemed essential to
the accomplishment of the NPRM be incorporated by reference into the regulatory instrument, and published in DMS.
We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final rule phase of rulemaking. This final rule incorporates by reference the documents necessary for the accomplishment of the requirements mandated by this AD. Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by reference do become public information, they do not lose their copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service information.
In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on the Department of Transportation's DMS, we are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service bulletins on DMS as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination, we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No change to the final rule is necessary in response to this comment.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
Air Trans Con/Pittco states that the NPRM does not address the required subscription to the CPCP manual. The Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004 (for Model CL6001A11 (CL600) airplanes); Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 6015 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004 (for Model CL6002A12 (CL601) airplanes); and Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004 (for Model CL6002B16 (CL6013A and CL6013R) airplanes); are referred to as the appropriate sources of service information for certain actions specified in the NPRM and are referred to as ``the Manual'' in this AD. The commenter states that the firstyear cost of these manuals would be between $5,000 and $9,000 per airplane. The commenter also notes that the facilities certified to work on the affected airplanes charge $93.00 per work hour plus a service charge of three percent, making an average labor rate of $95.79 per work hour.
We infer that the commenter requests that we revise the cost
estimate in the NPRM. We do not agree. In February 2006, we increased
the labor rate used in our calculations from $65 per work hour to $80
per work hour to account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry. The $80perworkhour number is an estimate and we
acknowledge that the rate will vary depending on where an operator
accomplishes the actions specified in this AD. However, an AD cannot
account for all fleetwide variabilities. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
In addition, we recognize that in accomplishing the requirements of any AD, operators may incur ``incidental'' costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, the general cost of doing business, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions, in addition to the ``direct'' costs that are reflected in the cost analysis presented in the AD preamble. The Manual is necessary to ensure that affected airplanes are operated in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation Regulations, but the Manual is a cost of doing business and is necessary to the operator for other reasons not required by this AD, such as developing a maintenance program. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the costs of the specific actions required by the AD action. We have not revised this AD in this regard.
Request To Provide Extensions to the Compliance Times
Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we provide rules and extensions to the compliance times specified in the NPRM as defined in Section 5 2005, page 2, of the Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004. The commenter states that the recommended extension tolerance for hourly controlled items is ten percent of the task interval or 45 hours, whichever is the lesser. The commenter also notes that the recommended extension tolerance for calendar controlled items is ten percent of the task interval or two months, whichever is the lesser. The commenter contends that the calendar items in the inspection and maintenance programs are also allowed at the respective interval and to the end of the calendar month for items that are not hardtime items. The commenter states that the NPRM should provide for extension tolerances allowed to individual task intervals other than airworthiness limitations.
We do not agree to allow extensions to the compliance times. Section 52005 is not contained in Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004, nor are the recommended extension tolerances stated by the commenter. In developing appropriate compliance times for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspections within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. However, according to the procedures in paragraph (n) of the final rule, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not revised the final rule in this regard.
Request To Remove Corrective Action
Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we remove paragraph (j) of the NPRM. The commenter states that the requirement specified in paragraph (j) to address any corrosion found during the actions specified in the NRPM is redundant with existing rules. The commenter explains that corrosion on any airplane is not listed in the airplane's type certificate data sheet and must be addressed prior to further flight when found during an inspection.
We do not agree to remove paragraph (j) of the final rule. If an
unsafe condition is found during any action required by an AD, the AD must specify an appropriate corrective action.
[[Page 75415]]
Request To Revise Compliance Time for Reporting to the Manufacturer
Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we revise the reporting time specified in paragraph (k)(1) of the NPRM from ``* * * within 3 days after finding Level 3 corrosion * * *'' to ``* * * prior to return of service of the aircraft * * *.'' The commenter states that all corrosion must be addressed prior to the return to service of the airplane and that Level 3 corrosion will require a remedy by the manufacturer.
We do not agree. It is possible that the corrective action will not be coordinated with the manufacturer, as in the case of parts replacement. Furthermore, waiting until the time of return to service to report Level 3 corrosion could unnecessarily delay reporting, especially when an airplane is down for an extended period. Level 3 corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern and reporting should not be delayed. We have not revised the final rule in this regard. Request To Revise Compliance Time for Submitting Scheduling Plan or Providing Data To Substantiate Corrosion Was Isolated
Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we revise the compliance time specified in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM from ``* * * within 10 days after finding Level 3 corrosion * * *'' to ``* * * within 10 days after return to service of the airplane * * *.'' The commenter states that most depotlevel maintenance and inspections are carried out at facilities that are far from the operator's home base, making it difficult to submit to the local Flight Standards District Office the scheduling plan or the data substantiating that corrosion was isolated.
We do not agree. Waiting until the time of return to service to submit the information could unnecessarily delay implementation of the plan, especially when an airplane is down for an extended period. Level 3 corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern and a plan to inspect the reminder of the fleet should not be delayed. We have not revised the final rule in this regard.
Request To Impose Response Compliance Time for the FAA
Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that the FAA be required to impose any schedule, other than proposed in a plan submitted by an operator, within 30 calendar days after submission of that plan as specified in paragraph (k)(2) of the NPRM. If there is no response from the FAA within 30 days, the commenter states that the submitted plan should be accepted/approved by default.
We acknowledge that we should respond to operators in a timely manner. However we do not agree to impose a response time on us to either approve a submitted plan or provide another schedule. Level 3 corrosion is an urgent airworthiness concern. We, along with the operator, must address level 3 corrosion with urgency. However, we cannot allow submitted plans to be approved without being reviewed. We must ensure that any plan will prove an acceptable level for the affected fleet. We have not revised this final rule in this regard. Request To Remove Requirement To Schedule Corrosion Tasks for Transferred Airplanes
Air Trans Con/Pittco requests that we remove the requirement to schedule corrosion tasks for transferred airplanes specified in paragraph (m) of the NPRM. The commenter states that this proposed requirement ``* * * impedes commerce and does not address the transferring of an aircraft to or from a foreign operator * * *.'' The commenter also states that paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the NPRM are vague and are redundant with other proposed requirements in the NPRM.
We do not agree. The new operator of a transferred airplane, whether transferred from another U.S. operator or from an operator from outside the U.S., must establish an acceptable schedule for accomplishing the actions that are required by this AD. Paragraph (m) of this AD is intended to ensure that transferred airplanes are inspected in accordance with the AD on the same basis as if there were continuity in ownership, and that scheduling inspections for each airplane is not delayed or postponed due to a transfer of ownership. Airplanes that have previously been subject to the AD must be inspected in accordance with either the previous operator's or the new operator's schedule, whichever will result in the earlier accomplishment date for that inspection. Other airplanes must be inspected before an operator can begin operating them, or in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA.
Operators should note that the areas to be inspected are those that are specified in the CPCP tasks required by this AD. Paragraph (m) of this AD states that a schedule to accomplish the CPCP tasks required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard. Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.
Costs of Compliance
This AD affects about 204 airplanes of U.S. registry. There are between 72 and 74 specific inspections, depending on the applicable Manual. The inspections take about 74 work hours per airplane, per inspection cycle, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $1,207,680, or $5,920 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
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 AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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
[[Page 75416]]
this 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, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec. 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
20062516 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 3914857.
Docket No. FAA200625645; Directorate Identifier 2005NM201AD. Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective January 19, 2007.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL6001A11 (CL 600), CL6002A12 (CL601), and CL6002B16 (CL6013A and CL601
3R) airplanes, certificated in any category.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from the determination that, as airplanes
age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. We
are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airplane due to corrosion.
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.
Manual References
(f) The term ``the Manual,'' as used in this AD, means the
documents specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this
AD, as applicable. Although the Manual specifies to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD requires reporting only Level 3 corrosion.
(1) For Model CL6001A11 (CL600) airplanes: Bombardier
Challenger 600 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004;
(2) For Model CL6002A12 (CL601) airplanes: Bombardier
Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 6015 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004; and
(3) For Model CL6002B16 (CL6013A and CL6013R) airplanes:
Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A5 (CPCP), dated July 28, 2004.
Initial Inspections
(g) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Perform each of the corrosion prevention and
control program (CPCP) tasks, including reprotection actions, as
applicable, specified in Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of the
applicable Manual, in accordance with the procedures specified in the applicable Manual.
(1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
(2) At the next CPCP task interval specified in the ``Interval''
column in the applicable table in Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of
the applicable Manual. The times in the ``Interval'' column are in
flight hours unless there is an ``M'' adjacent to the number. If
there is an ``M'' adjacent to the number, the time is in months. If
there are two different numbers for a task, the number with a ``T''
adjacent to it is the threshold and the number with an ``R'' adjacent to it is the repetitive interval.
Repetitive Inspections
(h) After accomplishment of each initial CPCP task required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (i) of
this AD: Repeat each of the CPCP tasks, and reprotection actions,
as applicable, specified in Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of the
applicable Manual, at intervals not to exceed the compliance time
specified in the ``Interval'' column in the applicable table in
Paragraph 9, ``List of Tasks,'' of the applicable Manual. The times
in the ``Interval'' column are in flight hours unless there is an
``M'' adjacent to the number. If there is an ``M'' adjacent to the
number, the time is in months. If there are two different numbers
for a task, the number with a ``T'' adjacent to it is the threshold
and the number with an ``R'' adjacent to it is the repetitive interval.
(i) After accomplishment of each initial CPCP task required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, the FAA may approve the incorporation into
the operator's approved maintenance/inspection program of either the
CPCP specified in the applicable Manual and this AD, or an
equivalent program that is approved by the FAA. In all cases, the
initial CPCP task for each airplane area must be completed at the
compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. For the
purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Flight Standards District Office.
(1) Any operator complying with paragraph (i) of this AD may use
an alternative recordkeeping method to that otherwise required by
section 91.417 (``Maintenance records'') or section 121.380
(``Maintenance recording requirements'') of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 91.417 or 14 CFR 121.380, respectively) for the
actions required by this AD, provided that the recordkeeping method
is approved by the FAA and is included in a revision to the FAA
approved maintenance/inspection program. For the purposes of this
paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant Flight Standards District Office.
(2) After the initial accomplishment of the tasks required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, any extension of the repetitive intervals
specified in the applicable Manual must be approved by the FAA. For
the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
Corrective Actions
(j) If any corrosion is found during accomplishment of any
action required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD: Before further
flight, rework, repair, or replace, as applicable, all subject
parts, in accordance with Paragraph 7, ``Application of the CPCP Check,'' of the applicable Manual.
Reporting Requirements and Repetitive Actions for Remainder of Affected Fleet
(k) If any Level 3 corrosion, as defined in the Introduction of
the applicable Manual, is found during accomplishment of any action
required by this AD: Do paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of
this AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements contained in this AD, and assigned OMB Control Number 21200056.
(1) Within 3 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, report
findings to Bombardier in accordance with paragraph 7.J. of the applicable Manual.
(2) Within 10 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion,
either submit a plan to the FAA to identify a schedule for
accomplishing the applicable CPCP task on the remainder of the
airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject to this AD, or
provide data substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion that was
found is an isolated case. The FAA may impose a schedule other than
proposed in the plan upon finding that a change to the schedule is
needed to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in a
timely manner. For the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is
defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for
operators that are assigned a PMI (e.g., part 121, 125, and 135
operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators (e.g., part 91 operators).
(3) Within the time schedule approved in accordance with
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, accomplish the applicable task on the
remainder of the airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject to this AD.
Limiting Future Corrosion Findings
(l) If corrosion findings that exceed Level 1 are found in any area during any repeat of any CPCP task after the initial
accomplishment required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 60 days
after such finding, implement a means approved by the FAA to reduce
future findings of corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better. For
the purposes of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant PMI for operators that are assigned
[[Page 75417]]
a PMI (e.g. part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant
Flight Standards District Office for other operators (e.g., part 91 operators).
Scheduling Corrosion Tasks for Transferred Airplanes
(m) Before any airplane subject to this AD is transferred and
placed into service by an operator: Establish a schedule for
accomplishing the CPCP tasks required by this AD in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD
have been accomplished previously at the schedule established by
this AD: Perform the first CPCP task in each area in accordance with
the previous operator's schedule, or in accordance with the new
operator's schedule, whichever results in an earlier accomplishment
of that CPCP task. After the initial accomplishment of each CPCP
task in each area as required by this paragraph, repeat each CPCP task in accordance with the new operator's schedule.
(2) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD
have not been accomplished previously, or have not been accomplished
at the schedule established by this AD: The new operator must
perform each initial CPCP task in each area before further flight or
in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA. For the purposes
of this paragraph, the FAA is defined as the cognizant PMI for
operators that are assigned a PMI (e.g., part 121, 125, and 135
operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for other operators (e.g., part 91 operators).
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(n)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with 14 CFR
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
(o) Canadian airworthiness directive CF200506, dated March 10, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(p) You must use the applicable service information specified in
Table 1 of this AD to perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
Table 1.Material Incorporated by Reference
Service information Date Bombardier Challenger 600 Time Limits/ July 28, 2004.
Maintenance.
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 605
(CPCP)
Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/ July 28, 2004.
Maintenance.
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 6015
(CPCP)
Bombardier Challenger 601 Time Limits/ July 28, 2004.
Maintenance.
Checks (CPCP) Supplement, PSP 601A5
(CPCP)
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Bombardier, Inc., Canadair, Aerospace Group, P.O. Box 6087, Station Centreville, Montreal, Quebec H3C 3G9, Canada, for a copy of this service information. You may review copies at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room PL401, Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at the NARA, call (202) 7416030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 7, 2006. Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E621268 Filed 121406; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 491013P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Richard Beckwith, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 2287302; fax (516) 7945531.