Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

20844 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules

of the forward passenger doors, by doing all DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The service information referenced in
actions specified in Accomplishment the proposed rule may be obtained from
Instructions of the applicable service Federal Aviation Administration Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706,
bulletin. Wichita, Kansas 67277. This
(1) If the functional test reveals no noisy 14 CFR Part 39 information may be examined at the
operation or binding: At intervals not to FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
[Docket No. 2002–NM–332–AD]
exceed 6,000 flight hours or 18 months, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
whichever occurs later, repeat the functional RIN 2120–AA64 Washington; or at or at the FAA,
test until the terminating action of paragraph Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,
(b) of this AD has been accomplished. Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-
(2) If any functional test required by this Model 650 Airplanes Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas.
AD reveals noisy operation or binding: Prior FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
to further flight, replace the steel bearings Robert P. Busto, Aerospace Engineer,
Administration (FAA), Department of
with bearings made from corrosion-resistant Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE–
Transportation (DOT).
material, in accordance with the applicable 116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
service bulletin. ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking; reopening of Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,
Optional Terminating Action comment period. Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,
(b) Accomplishment of the actions required Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone (316)
SUMMARY: This document revises an 946–4157; fax (316) 946–4107.
by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive tests
earlier proposed airworthiness directive SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
required by paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. (AD), applicable to certain Cessna
Model 650 airplanes, that would have Comments Invited
Actions Accomplished Per Previous Issue of required repetitive replacement of the Interested persons are invited to
Service Bulletin horizontal stabilizer primary trim participate in the making of the
(c) Actions accomplished before the actuator assembly (HSTA) with a proposed rule by submitting such
effective date of this AD in accordance with repaired assembly. This new action written data, views, or arguments as
the Boeing service bulletins listed in Table 2 revises the proposed rule by removing they may desire. Communications shall
of this AD are considered acceptable for the requirement for repetitive identify the Rules Docket number and
compliance with the requirements of replacement of the HSTA; adding a be submitted in triplicate to the address
paragraph (a) of this AD. requirement to inspect to determine the specified above. All communications
part number of the actuator control unit received on or before the closing date
(ACU) and replace the ACU with a new, for comments, specified above, will be
TABLE 2.—BOEING SERVICE considered before taking action on the
improved ACU if necessary; and adding
BULLETINS a requirement to revise the Limitations proposed rule. The proposals contained
section of the airplane flight manual. in this action may be changed in light
Boeing service of the comments received.
bulletin Revision Date of issue This new action also revises the
applicability to include all Model 650 Submit comments using the following
DC10–52–221 Original .. Nov. 5, 2001. airplanes. The actions specified by this format:
new proposed AD are intended to • Organize comments issue-by-issue.
DC10–52–221 1 ............. May 6, 2002.
prevent uncommanded movement of the For example, discuss a request to
MD11–52–046 Original .. Nov. 5, 2001.
horizontal stabilizer, which could result change the compliance time and a
MD11–52–046 1 ............. May 6, 2002.
MD11–52–046 2 ............. Oct. 8, 2002. in reduced controllability of the request to change the service bulletin
airplane. This action is intended to reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific
address the identified unsafe condition.
Alternative Methods of Compliance change to the proposed AD is being
DATES: Comments must be received by
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the requested.
May 17, 2005. • Include justification (e.g., reasons or
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in data) for each request.
Office, FAA, is authorized to approve
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs)
triplicate to the Federal Aviation Comments are specifically invited on
for this AD.
Administration (FAA), Transport the overall regulatory, economic,
Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, environmental, and energy aspects of
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002–NM– the proposed rule. All comments
2005. 332–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., submitted will be available, both before
Kalene C. Yanamura, Renton, Washington 98055–4056. and after the closing date for comments,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Comments may be inspected at this in the Rules Docket for examination by
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., interested persons. A report
[FR Doc. 05–8094 Filed 4–21–05; 8:45 am] Monday through Friday, except Federal summarizing each FAA-public contact
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
holidays. Comments may be submitted concerned with the substance of this
via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments proposal will be filed in the Rules
may also be sent via the Internet using Docket.
the following address: 9-anm- Commenters wishing the FAA to
nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent acknowledge receipt of their comments
via fax or the Internet must contain submitted in response to this action
‘‘Docket No. 2002–NM–332–AD’’ in the must submit a self-addressed, stamped
subject line and need not be submitted postcard on which the following
in triplicate. Comments sent via the statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Internet as attached electronic files must Docket Number 2002–NM–332–AD.’’
be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or The postcard will be date stamped and
2000 or ASCII text. returned to the commenter.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 20845

Availability of NPRMs in reduced controllability of the the problem, than by repetitive


Any person may obtain a copy of this airplane. replacements. Long-term inspections
NPRM by submitting a request to the In the preamble of that NPRM, we may not provide the degree of safety
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, explained that we considered the necessary for the transport airplane
ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. requirements ‘‘interim action’’ and were fleet. This, coupled with a better
2002–NM–332–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, considering further rulemaking. We now understanding of the human factors
SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. have determined that further associated with numerous repetitive
rulemaking is indeed necessary, and replacements, has led us to consider
Discussion this supplemental AD follows from that placing less emphasis on special
A proposal to amend part 39 of the determination. procedures and more emphasis on
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Actions Since Issuance of Original design improvements. The proposed
part 39) to add an airworthiness replacement is consistent with these
NPRM
directive (AD), applicable to certain considerations.
Cessna Model 650 airplanes, was Since issuance of the original NPRM,
published as a notice of proposed the airplane manufacturer in Explanation of New Relevant Service
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal conjunction with the parts manufacturer Information
Register on August 6, 2003 (68 FR has developed a new, improved actuator
control unit (ACU) for Cessna Model We have reviewed Cessna Service
46514). That NPRM would have
650 airplanes. We have determined that Bulletin SB650–27–53, dated March 11,
required repetitive replacement of the
this new, improved ACU provides a 2004. The service bulletin describes
horizontal stabilizer primary trim
actuator assembly (HSTA) with a mechanism for detecting a degraded no- procedures for inspecting to determine
repaired assembly. That NPRM was back device before a failed device can the part number of the ACU and
prompted by reports indicating that the contribute to reduced controllability of replacing the ACU with a new,
ability of the no-back feature of the the airplane. Furthermore, some of these improved ACU if necessary.
HSTA assembly, a design feature to new, improved ACUs are already in Accomplishing the actions specified in
prevent uncommanded movement of the service and have proven to be effective the service information is intended to
horizontal stabilizer, could be degraded at identifying degraded no-back devices. adequately address the unsafe
on Cessna Model 650 airplanes. We We also have determined that long- condition.
issued that NPRM to prevent term continued operational safety is Cessna has also issued the following
uncommanded movement of the better ensured by modifications or temporary revisions (TRs) to the
horizontal stabilizer, which could result design changes to remove the source of airplane flight manual (AFM):

AFM REVISIONS
Applicable Model 650 airplanes Cessna TR(s)

Citation III, S/Ns 0001 through 0199 inclusive, and 0203 through 0206 65C3FM TC–R02–01, dated May 12, 2004.
inclusive.
Citation III, S/Ns 0001 through 0199 inclusive, and 0203 through 0206 65C3FM TC–R02–06, dated August 11, 2004.
inclusive; equipped with Honeywell SPZ–8000 integrated avionics
system.
Citation III, S/Ns 0001 through 0199 inclusive, and 0203 through 0206 65C3FM TC–R02–07, dated August 11, 2004.
inclusive; not equipped with Honeywell SPZ–8000 integrated avionics
system.
Citation VI, S/Ns 0200 through 0202 inclusive, and 0207 and subse- 65C6FM TC–R04–01, dated May 12, 2004.
quent. 65C6FM TC–R04–06, dated August 11, 2004.
Citation VII, S/Ns 7001 and subsequent .................................................. 65C7FM TC–R10–01, dated May 12, 2004.
Citation VII, S/Ns 7001 and subsequent, equipped with Honeywell 65C7FM TC–R10–07, dated August 11, 2004.
SPZ–8000 integrated avionics system.

TR 65C3FM TC–R02–01, 65C6FM Comments of the no-back arrangement within the


TC–R04–01, and 65C7FM TC–R10–01 HSTA assembly. The monitor exposes
describe revisions to the Limitations Due consideration has been given to degrading function of the no-back before
the comments received in response to it can contribute to reduced
section of the AFM to advise the
the original NPRM. controllability of the airplane. When
flightcrew to accomplish the warning
system check for the stabilizer trim Request To Add Terminating Action degrading function is detected, the new
systems. ACU immediately sets a fault that
One commenter, the airplane causes the airplane to fail an existing
TR 65C3FM TC–R02–06, 65C3FM manufacturer, requests that we replace pre-flight check, limiting the airplane’s
TC–R02–07, 65C6FM TC–R04–06, and the proposed requirement for repetitive exposure to degradation for the
65C7FM TC–R10–07 describe revisions replacements of the HSTA assembly remainder of the flight.
to the Normal Procedures section of the with a terminating action. The Another commenter, an operator,
AFM to advise the flightcrew that commenter states that Cessna Service states that Cessna Service Bulletin
failure of the primary trim fail Bulletin 650–27–53, dated March 11, SB650–27–50, dated June 12, 2002
annunciator light to illuminate indicates 2004, specifies replacing the ACU with (which is cited in the original NPRM as
a fault in the primary trim control a new, improved ACU, part number (P/ as a source of service information for the
system. N) 9914197–7. This new ACU is an repetitive replacement of the HSTA
upgrade with a new monitor within the assembly), has not been distributed to
ACU that continuously checks function operators of the affected Model 650

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1
20846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules

airplanes. The commenter also states been found only in the laboratory includes the proposed one-time
that the manufacturer intends to environment. As justification, the replacement of the ACU.
supersede it with a new service bulletin commenter asserts that no airplanes We do, however, acknowledge the
that would recommend upgrading the have experienced uncommanded commenter’s objection to assigning cost
ACU (Cessna Service Bulletin 650–27– movement of the horizontal stabilizer responsibility in the cost impact of the
53). The commenter states that requiring during flight, and no actuators have original NPRM. We infer that the
the original NPRM as proposed would been removed from an airplane because commenter specifically objects to the
compel operators to obtain an alternate of this suspected failure mode. The sentence that stated, ‘‘[t]he
method of compliance to use Cessna commenter states that operators could manufacturer has indicated that it
Service Bulletin 650–27–53. The be misled into believing that failure of would provide the required parts at no
commenter further states that the actuator occurred in service. cost.’’ The cost impact of the original
documenting compliance of the Additionally, the commenter proposed NPRM was based on the best
proposed replacement of the HSTA new wording to clarify that, for information we had at the time the
assembly every 18 months involves uncommanded movement of the original NPRM was published. We point
considerable time and effort. We infer horizontal stabilizer to occur, a second out that, although we may have
that this commenter also requests we failure must occur in combination with inadvertently misstated the true cost of
revise the original NPRM to add the the degradation of the no-back feature of a repaired assembly, the cost impact is
terminating action referenced in Cessna the HSTA assembly. That second failure only an estimate.
Service Bulletin 650–27–53. is loss of electrical power to the actuator Request To Revise ‘‘Explanation of
We agree with the commenters’ clutch. Requirements of Proposed Rule’’
request for the reasons stated above. Although we agree with the
Paragraph
Also as stated earlier, we have commenter’s statements, we cannot
determined that the new, improved revise the ‘‘Discussion’’ paragraph The same commenter requests that we
ACU provides a mechanism for because it is not restated in this revise the ‘‘Explanation of Requirements
detecting a degraded no-back device supplemental NPRM. In addition to the of Proposed Rule’’ paragraph in the
before a failed device can contribute to second failure identified by the original NPRM. The commenter states
reduced controllability of the airplane. commenter, we have determined that that this paragraph should focus on the
Therefore, we have revised paragraph failure of the actuator gear train in component of concern (HSTA
(a) of this supplemental NPRM combination with degradation of the no- assembly). The commenter also states
accordingly. back feature of the HSTA assembly also that the phrases ‘‘is likely to exist’’ and
could cause uncommanded movement ‘‘other products’’ are ambiguous and
Request To Revise Applicability misleading. The commenter suggests
of the horizontal stabilizer to occur.
One commenter, the airplane Therefore, the third sentence of the changing the first sentence as follows:
manufacturer, requests that we add ‘‘Discussion’’ paragraph should have ‘‘Since an unsafe condition has been
Model 650 airplanes, serial numbers stated: ‘‘Should the no-back feature of identified that may possibly exist or
0172 and 7095, to the applicability of the HSTA assembly be degraded, and in develop on aircraft of this same type
the original NPRM. The commenter addition to that, electrical power to the design * * *.’’ As justification the
states that these two airplanes were actuator clutch is lost or the gear train commenter asserts, ‘‘[o]perators may be
omitted from the effectivity of Cessna of the actuator fails, the horizontal led to believe the unsafe condition is
Service Bulletin 650–27–50, dated June stabilizer could move when air loads are likely to exist.’’ Furthermore, the
12, 2002, because the recommended applied to it during flight.’’ commenter states that ‘‘other products’’
actions of that service bulletin had been could refer to either other aircraft, or
Request To Revise Cost Impact other actuators of similar design.
incorporated on those airplanes before
the service bulletin was published. The The same commenter requests that we We do not agree. Section 39.3
commenter states, however, that the revise the cost impact to include the (‘‘Definition of airworthiness
original NPRM should also be cost of the HSTA repair, since it is a directives’’) of the Federal Aviation
applicable to these two airplanes. significant amount. The commenter Regulations (14 CFR 39.3) specifies that
We agree with the commenter. We estimates that the cost of the airworthiness directives apply to the
have determined that Cessna Model 650 replacement (including labor and following products: aircraft, aircraft
airplanes, serial numbers 0172 and repaired parts) as proposed in the engine, propellers, and appliances.
7095, are also subject to the unsafe original NPRM would be $7,500 per Since this supplemental NPRM applies
condition addressed by this airplane, per replacement cycle, and to all Model 650 airplanes, the affected
supplemental NPRM. These two that the U.S.-registered fleet cost would product is the airplane model. In
airplanes also are included in the be $2,137,500, per replacement cycle. addition, Section 39.5 (‘‘When does
effectivity of Cessna Service Bulletin The commenter also states that ‘‘[t]he FAA issue airworthiness directives?’’) of
650–27–53, the new source of service responsibility for the costs associated the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
information for this supplemental with the [original NPRM] should not be CFR 39.5) specifies that we issue an
NPRM. Therefore, we have added these stated in the [original NPRM], as these airworthiness directive when we find
two additional airplanes to the business issues have not been settled, that an unsafe condition exists in the
applicability of this supplemental and are not relevant to the product and is likely to exist or develop
NPRM, which expands the applicability replacement.’’ in other products of the same type
to include all Model 650 airplanes. We do not agree. Since we have design. We also note that the
revised the requirements of this ‘‘Explanation of Requirements of
Request To Clarify ‘‘Discussion’’ supplemental NPRM, operators are no Proposed Rule’’ paragraph is not
Paragraph longer required to repetitively replace included in a supplemental NPRM, so
The same commenter requests that we the HSTA assembly with a repaired there is no paragraph to revise if we had
revise the ‘‘Discussion’’ paragraph of the assembly. Therefore, this supplemental agreed with the request. Therefore, no
original NPRM to clarify that actuators NPRM does not include the cost impact change to this supplemental NPRM is
with degraded no-back capability have of the proposed HSTA replacement, but necessary in this regard.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules 20847

Request To Revise Part Number We estimate that it would take would not have federalism implications
The same commenter requests that we approximately 2 work hours per under Executive Order 13132.
revise a certain referenced part number airplane to replace the ACU, and that For the reasons discussed above, I
in paragraph (b) of the original NPRM. the average labor rate is $65 per work certify that this proposed regulation (1)
The commenter states we inadvertently hour. Required parts would cost is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
referenced HSTA, P/N 9914056–3, as approximately $3,000 per airplane if the under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
P/N 99140563. ACU is exchanged. Based on these a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT
We do not agree with the commenter. figures, the cost impact of the proposed Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
We have reviewed the original NPRM as replacement of the ACU on U.S. FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if
published in the Federal Register on operators is estimated to be $892,050, or promulgated, will not have a significant
August 6, 2003 (68 FR 46514) and could $3,130 per airplane. economic impact, positive or negative,
not find the error the commenter refers The cost impact figure discussed on a substantial number of small entities
to. Therefore, no change to this above is based on assumptions that no under the criteria of the Regulatory
supplemental NPRM is necessary in this operator has yet accomplished any of Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regard. the proposed requirements of this AD regulatory evaluation prepared for this
action, and that no operator would action is contained in the Rules Docket.
Conclusion A copy of it may be obtained by
accomplish those actions in the future if
Since certain changes described above this AD were not adopted. The cost contacting the Rules Docket at the
expand the scope of the originally impact figures discussed in AD location provided under the caption
proposed rule, the FAA has determined rulemaking actions represent only the ADDRESSES.
that it is necessary to reopen the time necessary to perform the specific List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
comment period to provide additional actions actually required by the AD.
opportunity for public comment. These figures typically do not include Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
incidental costs, such as the time safety, Safety.
Differences Between Supplemental
NPRM and Service Bulletin required to gain access and close up, The Proposed Amendment
planning time, or time necessitated by Accordingly, pursuant to the
The service bulletin recommends other administrative actions. The
installing a new, improved ACU at the authority delegated to me by the
manufacturer may cover the cost of Administrator, the Federal Aviation
next phase 2 inspection or within 18
replacement parts associated with this Administration proposes to amend part
months, whichever occurs first.
proposed AD, subject to warranty 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
However, we have determined that an
conditions. As a result, the costs (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
18-month interval would not address
attributable to the proposed AD may be
the identified unsafe condition soon
less than stated above. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
enough to ensure an adequate level of
safety for the affected fleet. Authority for This Rulemaking DIRECTIVES
Furthermore, an imprecise compliance 1. The authority citation for part 39
Title 49 of the United States Code
time, such as ‘‘at the next phase 2 continues to read as follows:
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
inspection,’’ would not address the
identified unsafe condition in a timely rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
manner. In developing an appropriate Section 106, describes the authority of
§ 39.13 [Amended]
compliance time for this AD, we the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more 2. Section 39.13 is amended by
considered the degree of urgency adding the following new airworthiness
associated with the subject unsafe detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority. directive:
condition as well as the availability of
We are issuing this rulemaking under Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket 2002–NM–
required parts, the average utilization of
the authority described in Subtitle VII, 332–AD.
the affected fleet, and the time necessary
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, Applicability: All Model 650 airplanes,
to perform the installation (2 hours). In certificated in any category.
light of all of these factors, we find that ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with Compliance: Required as indicated, unless
a compliance time of 12 months accomplished previously.
represents an appropriate interval of promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in To prevent uncommanded movement of
time for affected airplanes to continue to air commerce by prescribing regulations the horizontal stabilizer, which could result
operate without compromising safety. for practices, methods, and procedures in reduced controllability of the airplane,
The compliance time has been the Administrator finds necessary for accomplish the following:
coordinated with the manufacturer. safety in air commerce. This regulation
Inspection and Replacement if Necessary
Operators should also note that, is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition (a) Within 12 months after the effective
although the Accomplishment date of this AD, inspect to determine the part
Instructions of the referenced service that is likely to exist or develop on number (P/N) of the actuator control unit
bulletin describe procedures for products identified in this rulemaking (ACU), in accordance with the
submitting a maintenance transaction action. Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna
report, this proposed AD would not Regulatory Impact Service Bulletin 650–27–53, dated March 11,
require that action. The FAA does not 2004. If an ACU having P/N 9914197–7 is
need this information from operators. The regulations proposed herein installed on the airplane, then no further
would not have a substantial direct action is required by this paragraph. If an
Cost Impact effect on the States, on the relationship ACU having P/N 9914197–3 or P/N 9914197–
4 is installed on the airplane, replace the
There are approximately 357 between the national Government and existing ACU with a new, improved ACU
airplanes of the affected design in the the States, or on the distribution of having P/N 9914197–7, in accordance with
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that power and responsibilities among the the service bulletin. Although the service
285 airplanes of U.S. registry would be various levels of government. Therefore, bulletin referenced in this AD specifies to
affected by this proposed AD. it is determined that this proposal submit certain information to the

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1
20848 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 77 / Friday, April 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules

manufacturer, this AD does not include that AD, whichever is first: Revise the Limitations this AD has been included in the general
requirement. and Normal Procedures sections of the AFM revisions of the AFM, the general revisions
by inserting into the AFM a copy of all the may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision applicable Cessna temporary revisions (TRs) of the applicable TR may be removed from
(b) Within 1 month after the effective date listed in Table 1 of this AD. the AFM.
of this AD or concurrently with the Note 1: When a statement identical to that
replacement required by paragraph (a) of this in the applicable TR(s) listed in Table 1 of

TABLE 1.—AFM REVISION


Applicable Model 650 airplanes Cessna TR(s)

Citation III, S/Ns 0001 through 0199 inclusive, and 0203 through 0206 65C3FM TC–R02–01, dated May 12, 2004; and 65C3FM TC–R02–06,
inclusive; equipped with Honeywell SPZ–8000 integrated avionics dated August 11, 2004.
system.
Citation III, S/Ns 0001 through 0199 inclusive, and 0203 through 0206 65C3FM TC–R02–01, dated May 12, 2004; and 65C3FM TC–R02–07,
inclusive; not equipped with Honeywell SPZ–8000 integrated avionics dated August 11, 2004.
system.
Citation VI, S/Ns 0200 through 0202 inclusive, and 0207 and subse- 65C6FM TC–R04–01, dated May 12, 2004; and 65C6FM TC–R04–06,
quent. dated August 11, 2004.
Citation VII, S/Ns 7001 and subsequent .................................................. 65C7FM TC–R10–01, dated May 12, 2004.
Citation VII, S/Ns 7001 and subsequent, equipped with Honeywell 65C7FM TC–R10–07, dated August 11, 2004.
SPZ–8000 integrated avionics system.

Parts Installation Comments should refer to ‘‘TSR Fee Web site. The Commission will consider
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no Rule, Project No. P034305,’’ to facilitate all comments that regulations.gov
person may install an ACU having P/N the organization of comments. A forwards to it.
9914197–3 or –4, on any airplane. comment filed in paper form should The FTC Act and other laws the
Alternative Methods of Compliance include this reference both in the text Commission administers permit the
(AMOCs) and on the envelope, and should be collection of public comments to
mailed or delivered to the following consider and use in this proceeding as
(d) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the
Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification address: Federal Trade Commission/ appropriate. All timely and responsive
Office, FAA, is authorized to approve Office of the Secretary, Room H–159 public comments, whether filed in
AMOCs for this AD. (Annex K), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, paper or electronic form, will be
NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments considered by the Commission, and will
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 13,
2005.
containing confidential material must be be available to the public on the FTC
filed in paper form, must be clearly Web site, to the extent practicable, at
Ali Bahrami,
labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c),
Aircraft Certification Service.
discretion, the FTC makes every effort to
16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).1 The FTC is remove home contact information for
[FR Doc. 05–8095 Filed 4–21–05; 8:45 am] requesting that any comment filed in individuals from the public comments it
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P paper form be sent by courier or receives before placing those comments
overnight service, if possible, because on the FTC Web site. More information,
U.S. postal mail in the Washington, DC including routine uses permitted by the
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION area and at the Commission is subject to Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s
delay due to heightened security privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/
16 CFR Part 310 precautions. ftc/privacy.htm.
Comments filed in electronic form
RIN 3084–0098 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
should be submitted by clicking on the
David B Robbins, (202) 326–3747,
Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees following Web link: https://
Division of Planning & Information,
secure.commentworks.com/ftc-
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal
dncfees2005 and following the
Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; instructions on the Web-based form. To
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
request for public comment. ensure that the Commission considers
an electronic comment, you must file it SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade on the Web-based form at https:// I. Background
Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’ or secure.commentworks.com/ftc-
‘‘FTC’’) is issuing a Notice of Proposed dncfees2005. You may also visit On December 18, 2002, the
Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) to amend the http://www.regulations.gov to read this Commission issued final amendments to
Telemarketing Sales Rule (‘‘TSR’’) to notice of proposed rulemaking, and may the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which,
revise the fees charged to entities file an electronic comment through that inter alia, established the National Do
accessing the National Do Not Call Not Call Registry, permitting consumers
Registry, and invites written comments 1 The comment must be accompanied by an to register, via either a toll-free
on the issues raised by the proposed explicit request for confidential treatment, telephone number or the Internet, their
changes. including the factual and legal basis for the request, preference not to receive certain
and must identify the specific portions of the telemarketing calls (‘‘Amended TSR’’).2
DATES: Comments must be received by comment to be withheld from the public record.
Under the Amended TSR, most
June 1, 2005. The request will be granted or denied by the
Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are applicable law and the public interest. See 2 See 68 FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) (codified at 16

invited to submit written comments. Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). CFR pt. 310).

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:26 Apr 21, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22APP1.SGM 22APP1

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi