Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes, 55614-55616 [2011-22933]

Download as PDF 55614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules R20 short lamps more efficient while also meeting spa application requirements. The CA IOUs contended that despite size and thermal limitations, there are commerciallyavailable small diameter lamps that have high efficiency, long life, and wide beam spreads. Further, the CA IOUs noted that these lamps use single-ended and double-ended halogen burners that improve energy efficiency while still meeting size requirements of spa lamps and providing sufficient lumens. (CA IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 3) The CA IOUs cited examples such as: (1) The Philips 40W Halogena Energy Saver, an R20 halogen lamp with a double-ended halogen burner, lamp life of 3,000 hours, 540 lumen output and wide (flood) beam spread; and (2) the Philips 70W Halogena Energy Saver with doubleended burner, lamp life of 3,000 hours, and 1600 lumen output. (CA IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 2–3) The Energy Efficiency Organizations also cite the same examples. (Energy Efficiency Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also gave the example of a PAR20 8 lamp, which typically does not have MOLs exceeding 35⁄8 inches, and does have a lamp life of 3,000 hours, a wide variety of beam spreads, and the ability to accommodate single-ended halogen burners that would improve efficiency. (CA IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 2) NEEA concurred with the CA IOUs on this matter. (NEEA, 5.1 at p. 2) DOE requests comments on the technical feasibility of making R20 short lamps compliant with the energy conservation standards and also meeting relevant spa application requirements. In particular, DOE requests any technical data indicating that high temperatures would damage the cement that joins the base of the lamp to the glass envelope and/or the feasibility of increasing the lumen output without increasing the MOL using a more-efficient filament. DOE also requests comment on whether other technologies such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) or light-emitting diode (LED) could meet spa application requirements. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS D. Request for Information Although, DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments, information, and recommendations on the following issues for the purpose of determining whether R20 short lamps meet the statutory criteria for exclusion from 8 ‘‘PAR’’ denotes parabolic aluminized reflector lamp type, and ‘‘20’’ is the diameter in 1⁄8 inches increments, which translates to 2.5 inches. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:33 Sep 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 coverage set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E): 1. DOE seeks comments on the potential for unregulated R20 short lamps to be used as substitutes for other lamps covered by energy conservation standards. 2. DOE seeks comments on whether or not the distinctive features, pricing, and spa-specific labeling and marketing of R20 short lamps provide a sufficient deterrent to their use in other applications; 3. DOE requests further information on the availability of substitute lamps that would meet both energy conservation standards and relevant spa application requirements, particularly whether CFLs or LEDs could serve as substitutes; and 4. DOE requests further information on the technical feasibility of making R20 short lamps compliant with the prescribed energy conservation standards and also meeting relevant spa application requirements. In particular, DOE is interested in any technical data indicating that high temperatures would damage the cement that joins the base of the lamp to the glass envelope and/ or the feasibility of increasing the lumen output without increasing the MOL using a more-efficient filament. Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2011. Kathleen Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2011–22813 Filed 9–7–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2011–0971; Directorate Identifier 2011–CE–030–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24–954 and FU24A–954 airplanes modified with an unapproved hopper lid modification. This proposed AD results SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Investigation of a recent Cresco 08–600 accident identified a risk of the hopper lid interfering with the opening of the canopy in the event of an emergency landing. The pilot was prevented from opening the canopy by the hopper lid in the fully forward open position. This AD is issued due to the fact that the hopper lid installation on the accident aircraft was an unapproved modification and the Fletcher FU24 hopper installation is a similar design to the Cresco 08–600. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 2011. DATES: 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. ADDRESSES: Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4146; fax: (816) 329–4090; e-mail: karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM 08SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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–2011–0971; Directorate Identifier 2011–CE–030–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 because of 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 The Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/FU24/180, dated July 28, 2011 (referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Investigation of a recent Cresco 08–600 accident identified a risk of the hopper lid interfering with the opening of the canopy in the event of an emergency landing. The pilot was prevented from opening the canopy by the hopper lid in the fully forward open position. This AD is issued due to the fact that the hopper lid installation on the accident aircraft was an unapproved modification and the Fletcher FU24 hopper installation is a similar design to the Cresco 08–600. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS The MCAI requires reviewing the aircraft records, doing a conformity inspection for an approved design hopper lid installation, and removing the hopper lid installation, if not an approved design. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:33 Sep 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $85, or $85 per product. In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $510 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 55615 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 a regulatory 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, Incorporation by reference, 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 adding the following new AD: Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA– 2011–0971; Directorate Identifier 2011– CE–030–AD. Comments Due Date (a) We must receive comments by October 24, 2011. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24–954 and FU24A–954 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Subject (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 52: Doors. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: Investigation of a recent Cresco 08–600 accident identified a risk of the hopper lid interfering with the opening of the canopy in the event of an emergency landing. The pilot was prevented from opening the canopy by the hopper lid in the fully forward open position. This AD is issued due to the fact that the hopper lid installation on the E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM 08SEP1 55616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules accident aircraft was an unapproved modification and the Fletcher FU24 hopper installation is a similar design to the Cresco 08–600. The MCAI requires reviewing the aircraft records, doing a conformity inspection for an approved design hopper lid installation, and removing the hopper lid installation, if not an approved design. Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions within 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 12 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: (1) Review the aircraft records and determine whether a hopper lid modification has been recorded. If a hopper lid modification has been recorded, determine whether the aircraft was certified for release to service after completion of the modification and whether the applicable approved technical data (supplemental type certificate (STC) or field approval) is referenced. Visually inspect for an unapproved hopper lid modification. (2) If the hopper lid modification is an approved design, do a conformity inspection and determine whether the hopper lid modification conforms to the applicable approved technical data (supplemental type certificate (STC) or field approval). (3) If the hopper lid modification is not an approved design (STC or field approval), before further flight, remove the hopper lid installation. Note 1: The Frontier-Aerospace Incorporated Models Fletcher FU–24 and Fletcher FU–24A airplanes are U.S. typecertificated airplanes and do not have this unsafe condition. Note 2: The basic hopper installation for the Pacific Aerospace Limited Model FU24– 954 airplane does not include a hopper lid due to the canopy sliding partly over the hopper inlet. A separate approval must be obtained to install a hopper lid. actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service. (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES–200. Related Information (h) MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/FU24/180, dated July 28, 2011, for related information. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 31, 2011. Earl Lawrence, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 2011–22933 Filed 9–7–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P FAA AD Differences jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Other FAA AD Provisions (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4146; fax: (816) 329–4090; e-mail: karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these 21 CFR Part 1308 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:33 Sep 07, 2011 Jkt 223001 Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA–357] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Three Synthetic Cathinones Into Schedule I Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice. ACTION: Notice of Intent. AGENCY: The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule three synthetic cathinones under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The substances are 4- SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 methyl-N-methylcathinone (mephedrone), 3,4-methylenedioxy-Nmethylcathinone (methylone), and 3,4methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV). This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of these synthetic cathinones into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Any final order will be published in the Federal Register and may not be issued prior to October 11, 2011. Any final order will impose the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions and regulatory controls of schedule I substances under the CSA on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, and exportation of these synthetic cathinones. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone (202) 307–7165. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–473), which was signed into law on October 12, 1984, amended section 201 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) to give the Attorney General the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for one year without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h); 21 CFR 1308.49. If proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling up to six months. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2). Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 812) or if there is no exemption or approval in effect under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) for the substance. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated his authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of DEA. 28 CFR 0.100. Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4)) requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services of her intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.1 1 Because the Secretary of Health and Human Services has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations, for purposes of this E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM 08SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55614-55616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22933]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0971; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-030-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24-954 and FU24A-954 airplanes 
modified with an unapproved hopper lid modification. This proposed AD 
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and 
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes 
the unsafe condition as:

    Investigation of a recent Cresco 08-600 accident identified a 
risk of the hopper lid interfering with the opening of the canopy in 
the event of an emergency landing. The pilot was prevented from 
opening the canopy by the hopper lid in the fully forward open 
position. This AD is issued due to the fact that the hopper lid 
installation on the accident aircraft was an unapproved modification 
and the Fletcher FU24 hopper installation is a similar design to the 
Cresco 08-600.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the 
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24, 
2011.

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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory 
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street 
address for the Docket 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 
Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; fax: (816) 329-4090; e-mail: 
karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 55615]]

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-2011-0971; 
Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-030-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 because of 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

    The Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for 
New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/FU24/180, dated July 28, 2011 (referred 
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the 
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Investigation of a recent Cresco 08-600 accident identified a 
risk of the hopper lid interfering with the opening of the canopy in 
the event of an emergency landing. The pilot was prevented from 
opening the canopy by the hopper lid in the fully forward open 
position. This AD is issued due to the fact that the hopper lid 
installation on the accident aircraft was an unapproved modification 
and the Fletcher FU24 hopper installation is a similar design to the 
Cresco 08-600.

The MCAI requires reviewing the aircraft records, doing a conformity 
inspection for an approved design hopper lid installation, and removing 
the hopper lid installation, if not an approved design. You may obtain 
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another 
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant 
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they 
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and 
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because 
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists 
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type 
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service 
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in 
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it 
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the 
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these 
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information 
provided in the MCAI and related service information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 1 product of U.S. 
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per 
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The 
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost 
about $0 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on 
U.S. operators to be $85, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would 
take about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of 
$510 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products 
that may need these actions.

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 a regulatory 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, Incorporation by 
reference, 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.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA-2011-0971; Directorate 
Identifier 2011-CE-030-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 24, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited Models FU24-954 
and FU24A-954 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any 
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 52: Doors.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) 
states:

    Investigation of a recent Cresco 08-600 accident identified a 
risk of the hopper lid interfering with the opening of the canopy in 
the event of an emergency landing. The pilot was prevented from 
opening the canopy by the hopper lid in the fully forward open 
position. This AD is issued due to the fact that the hopper lid 
installation on the

[[Page 55616]]

accident aircraft was an unapproved modification and the Fletcher 
FU24 hopper installation is a similar design to the Cresco 08-600.

The MCAI requires reviewing the aircraft records, doing a conformity 
inspection for an approved design hopper lid installation, and 
removing the hopper lid installation, if not an approved design.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions within 150 
hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or 
within 12 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, 
whichever occurs first:
    (1) Review the aircraft records and determine whether a hopper 
lid modification has been recorded. If a hopper lid modification has 
been recorded, determine whether the aircraft was certified for 
release to service after completion of the modification and whether 
the applicable approved technical data (supplemental type 
certificate (STC) or field approval) is referenced. Visually inspect 
for an unapproved hopper lid modification.
    (2) If the hopper lid modification is an approved design, do a 
conformity inspection and determine whether the hopper lid 
modification conforms to the applicable approved technical data 
(supplemental type certificate (STC) or field approval).
    (3) If the hopper lid modification is not an approved design 
(STC or field approval), before further flight, remove the hopper 
lid installation.

    Note 1: The Frontier-Aerospace Incorporated Models Fletcher FU-
24 and Fletcher FU-24A airplanes are U.S. type-certificated 
airplanes and do not have this unsafe condition.


    Note 2: The basic hopper installation for the Pacific Aerospace 
Limited Model FU24-954 airplane does not include a hopper lid due to 
the canopy sliding partly over the hopper inlet. A separate approval 
must be obtained to install a hopper lid.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information 
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, 
Standards Office, 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, 
Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; fax: (816) 329-4090; e-
mail: karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC on 
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office 
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain 
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these 
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered 
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority 
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product 
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in 
this AD, a Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a 
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information 
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless 
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control 
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is 
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the 
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. All responses to this collection of 
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this 
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to 
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/FU24/180, dated 
July 28, 2011, for related information. You may review copies of the 
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane 
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For 
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 31, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22933 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P