Docket-No-03┬¡033F;-Docket-Number-FSIS┬¡2005┬¡0026.pdf

Loading ...
Global Do...
News & Politics
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Aug 02, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES43958 
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 
(2) The lender generally will 
discontinue interest accrual on the 
defaulted loan at the time the estimated 
loss claim is paid by the Agency. The 
following exceptions apply: 
(i) If the lender estimates that there 
will be no loss after considering the 
costs of liquidation, interest accrual will 
cease 90 days after the decision to 
liquidate, 
(ii) In the case of a Chapter 7 
bankruptcy, in cases where the lender 
filed an estimated loss claim, the 
Agency will pay the lender interest 
which accrues during and up to 45 days 
after the date of discharge on the portion 
of the chattel only secured debt that was 
estimated to be secured but upon final 
liquidation was found to be unsecured, 
and up to 90 days after the date of 
discharge on the portion of real estate 
secured debt that was estimated to be 
secured but was found to be unsecured 
upon final disposition, 
(iii) The Agency will pay the lender 
interest which accrues during and up to 
90 days after the time period the lender 
is unable to dispose of acquired 
property due to state imposed 
redemption rights on any unsecured 
portion of the loan during the 
redemption period, if an estimated loss 
claim was paid by the Agency during 
the liquidation action. 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 18, 
2006. 
Teresa C. Lasseter, 
Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 
[FR Doc. E6–12503 Filed 8–2–06; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Food Safety and Inspection Service 
9 CFR Parts 327 and 381 
[Docket No. 03–033F; FDMS Docket Number 

FSIS–2005–0026] 

RIN 0583–AD08 

Frequency of Foreign Inspection 
System Supervisory Visits to Certified 
Foreign Establishments 
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS) FSIS is 
amending 9 CFR parts 327 and 381 to 
bring the frequency with which foreign 
inspection systems are required to make 
supervisory visits to certified 
establishments into agreement with the 
frequency with which the Agency 
makes supervisory visits to domestic 
establishments. This final rule does not 
affect in-plant inspection requirements. 
FSIS is deleting the requirement that 
supervisory visits take place ‘‘not less 
frequent[ly] than one such visit per 
month.’’ Instead, FSIS will require 
foreign inspection systems to make 
‘‘periodic supervisory visits’’ to certified 
establishments to ensure that 
establishments meet FSIS requirements 
for certification to export meat and 
poultry to the United States. 
DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 
2006. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 
Sally White, Director, International 
Equivalence Staff, FSIS Office of 
International Affairs; (202) 720–6400; 
sally.white@fsis.usda.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Background 
On August 18, 2004, FSIS published 
a proposal in the Federal Register (69 
FR 51194–51196) to amend 9 CFR 
327.2(a)(2)(iv)(A) and 9 CFR 
381.196(a)(2)(iv)(A) to provide that 
supervisory visits by a representative of 
the foreign inspection system are to 
occur at periodic intervals to ensure that 
establishments and products meet the 
requirements for certification to the 
United States on an ongoing basis. This 
change would make the Agency’s 
requirements for foreign inspection 
programs as consistent as possible with 
the FSIS domestic inspection program. 
It would also allow foreign countries 
flexibility in structuring their programs. 
Upon the effective date of this final 
rule, FSIS will send an official letter to 
each eligible country announcing: The 
change from the monthly requirement 
and requesting, in writing, formal notice 
of the eligible country’s projected 
frequency of supervisory visits; an 
explanation of why the proposed 
frequency will ensure that the eligible 
country’s system produces safe, 
wholesome, unadulterated, and 
properly labeled and packaged product 
on an ongoing basis; and an explanation 
of how the system will ensure that any 
immediate need for supervisory 
intervention will be recognized and met. 
The frequency of periodic supervisory 
visits will be evaluated for adequacy by 
FSIS through its annual audit process, 
in which the ongoing eligibility of an 
exporting country is reviewed. 
Comments 
FSIS received four comments on the 
proposed rule. One comment supported 
the proposal. Three comments raised 
concerns, with one calling for the 
proposal to be withdrawn. The concerns 
expressed in these three comments are 
summarized and answered below. 
Equivalence With U.S. Domestic 
Inspection System Culture 
Two comments noted that FSIS has 
stated that there are continual contacts 
between its inspectors in domestic 
plants and supervisors through means 
other than personal visits and 
questioned whether such intensive 
interaction exists within exporting 
countries that would no longer be held 
to monthly supervisory visits. 
FSIS Response 
The Agency notes that the inspection 
system of a country requesting 
eligibility to export meat and poultry 
products to the United States is 
thoroughly investigated during the 
equivalence evaluation process 
described at length in the proposal to 
this final rule. A key part of the 
evaluation is an assessment of in-plant 
implementation of inspection system 
procedures, which includes an 
examination of the appropriate level of 
supervisory oversight for certified 
establishments. An applying country 
must demonstrate that its inspection 
system, as implemented, includes 
features equivalent to those of the U.S. 
system before the country can be found 
equivalent. 
As stated above, upon the effective 
date of this final rule, FSIS will send an 
official letter to each eligible country 
announcing the change from the 
monthly requirement. FSIS will request 
formal notice in writing of the eligible 
country’s projected frequency of 
supervisory visits and an explanation of 
why the proposed frequency will ensure 
that the eligible country’s system 
produces safe and wholesome product 
on an ongoing basis. Each eligible 
country will also be asked to describe, 
in writing, how its system will ensure 
that any immediate need for supervisory 
intervention will be recognized and met. 
The frequency of periodic supervisory 
visits will be evaluated for adequacy by 
FSIS in its annual audits reviewing the 
ongoing eligibility of an exporting 
country. 
Equivalence With Domestic State 
Inspection Systems 
Another comment noted that the 28 
State inspection systems are required to 
be ‘‘at least equal to’’ the Federal 
inspection system, and that many 
federally-inspected plants have reported 
supervisory visits more frequently than 
the monthly requirement that will be 
eliminated for eligible exporting 
countries by the final rule. 
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Aug 02, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULESFederal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 
43959 
FSIS Response 
The Agency notes that, as it does not 
set a mandatory frequency for itself, it 
does not require a set frequency of 
supervisory visits from the ‘‘equal to’’ 
State inspection systems. Thus, there is 
no compelling reason for the Agency to 
require exporting countries to meet a 
specific frequency that is not mandatory 
for any domestic program. Supervisory 
visits in domestic establishments under 
Federal inspection occur at the 
frequency required by local conditions 
and by Agency concerns regarding the 
situation at a given plant. Thus the 
frequency of visits varies from plant to 
plant, but overall such visits occur less 
frequently than once a month. 
Definition of ‘‘Periodic’’ 
One comment asked if the Agency 
will define ‘‘periodic’’ and require 
uniformity among countries eligible to 
export meat and poultry products to the 
United States. 
FSIS Response 
As there is no domestic requirement 
for a specific frequency of supervisory 
visits to plants, ‘‘periodic’’ will mean a 
frequency determined by exporting 
countries as adequate to ensure that 
certified establishments continually 
meet FSIS equivalency requirements, as 
evaluated and verified by the Agency. 
As stated above, upon the effective date 
of this final rule, FSIS will send an 
official letter to each eligible country 
announcing the change from the 
monthly requirement and will request 
formal notice, in writing, of the eligible 
country’s projected frequency of 
supervisory visits. 
Timely Information 
One comment asked whether the 
Agency has a mechanism for staying 
current with regulatory or procedural 
changes in exporting countries. 
FSIS Response 
The Agency has long maintained a 
system of exchanging official letters 
with trading partners to provide notice 
of any relevant changes in both 
regulations and inspection procedures. 
FSIS, furthermore, conducts an ongoing 
system of equivalence verification to 
update the original equivalence 
evaluation. One key element of this 
verification system is a recurring 
document analysis of the laws, 
regulations, and implementing policies 
of the foreign food regulatory system to 
ensure that an equivalent infrastructure 
is in place, and that timely notification 
of any relevant changes has been made 
through the system of official letters. As 
stated above, upon the effective date of 
this final rule, FSIS will send official 
letters to all eligible countries informing 
them of the change from the monthly 
requirement and requesting formal 
notice of their projected frequency of 
supervisory visits. 
The second key element of the 
equivalence verification process is the 
annual on-site food regulatory system 
audit conducted by FSIS technical 
specialists in every country that exports 
meat or poultry products to the United 
States. During these annual system 
audits, FSIS seeks evidence that the 
exporting country has instituted 
sanitary measures adequate to provide 
the same level of protection that is 
ensured by our domestic system. The 
system audit focuses on two essential 
components of safe food production, 
industry process control and 
government regulatory control. The 
frequency of periodic supervisory visits 
would be evaluated for adequacy by 
FSIS in the annual audits. 
The third component of equivalence 
verification is port-of-entry 
reinspection, where FSIS randomly 
samples meat and poultry products as 
they enter the United States to ensure 
that exporting country certificates are 
authentic and accurate, and that 
products meet all U.S. standards 
pertaining to safe, wholesome, 
unadulterated, and properly labeled and 
packaged product. Although records are 
maintained on each certified 
establishment, reinspection is designed 
to verify effectiveness of the foreign 
inspection system. Port-of-entry 
reinspection is directed by the 
Automated Import Information System 
(AIIS), a centralized computer database 
that stores daily reinspection results 
from all ports of entry for each country 
and for each establishment. When a 
shipment is presented for reinspection, 
the AIIS scans its existing records to 
determine whether the foreign country, 
the establishment, and the product are 
eligible for export to the United States. 
The shipment is refused entry if any 
component of eligibility is absent. 
Given these well-established 
mechanisms, and the additional FSIS 
request for notice of an exporting 
country’s projected frequency of 
periodic supervisory visits, the Agency 
is confident that it will quickly become 
aware of any changes in an exporting 
country’s regulatory system and 
practice. 
Terrorism 
One comment stated that eliminating 
the requirement for monthly 
supervisory visits could undercut the 
war on terrorism by loosening control of 
products destined for export to the 
United States. 
FSIS Response 
As described above, the inspection 
system of a country requesting 
eligibility to export meat and poultry 
products to the United States is 
analyzed intensively during the 
equivalence evaluation process, which 
includes a review of in-plant 
implementation of inspection system 
procedures. A country applying for 
eligibility must demonstrate that its 
inspection system, as implemented, 
includes features equivalent to those of 
the U.S. system before the country can 
be found equivalent. 
As stated above, upon the effective 
date of this final rule, FSIS will send an 
official letter to each eligible country 
announcing the change from the 
monthly requirement and requesting 
formal notice in writing of the eligible 
country’s projected frequency of 
supervisory visits. FSIS will also request 
that each country explain why the 
proposed frequency will ensure that its 
system produces safe and wholesome 
product on an ongoing basis, and 
describe how the system will ensure 
that any immediate need for supervisory 
intervention will be recognized and met. 
To verify the continuing equivalence 
of an eligible exporting country, FSIS 
maintains a comprehensive system of 
import inspection controls as described 
above, which includes recurring 
document analysis of a foreign country’s 
inspection system, annual on-site 
audits, and port-of-entry reinspection. 
During the Agency’s annual audits of 
those foreign countries exporting meat, 
poultry, and egg products to the United 
States, information is provided to the 
exporting countries on the FSIS security 
guidelines for food processors and for 
the transportation and distribution of 
meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS 
auditors also report to the appropriate 
inspection officials any potential threats 
that they observe during the audit. In 
these annual equivalence/verification 
audits, FSIS will evaluate the frequency 
of periodic supervisory visits for 
adequacy. 
FSIS has also developed strong 
internal resources for food defense that 
provide an extra margin of protection 
against potential terrorism involving the 
food supply. These resources include 
the Office of Food Defense and 
Emergency Response (OFDER), a 
dedicated, full-time staff whose sole 
responsibility is food security, and 
Import Surveillance Liaison Officers 
who are stationed around the country to 
augment the efforts of traditional FSIS 
inspectors assigned to import houses. 
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Aug 02, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES43960 
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 
The Agency, furthermore, participates 
in the Federal International Trade Data 
System (ITDS), a multi-department, 
multi-agency initiative establishing a 
single, automated system for sharing 
data on the inspection and certification 
of products moving in foreign 
commerce. 
With these notification and auditing 
mechanisms and other initiatives in 
place, FSIS believes it can verify that 
countries eligible to export meat and 
poultry products to the United States 
maintain, among other things, food 
defense procedures and practices that 
are equivalent to those of the United 
States. 
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 
Flexibility Act 
This rule has been reviewed under 
Executive Order 12866. It has been 
determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866 by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). 
The main effect of this action is to 
give eligible countries the flexibility to 
structure their own supervisory 
programs as they deem necessary so as 
to ensure that establishments continue 
to meet the requirements for 
certification to export to the United 
States. This action will enable the 
United States to meet its obligation as a 
signatory to the World Trade 
Organization (WTO) ‘‘Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures’’ not to impose 
import requirements on inspection 
systems or establishments in an 
exporting country that are more 
stringent than those applied 
domestically. No costs should ensue 
from this final action. 
Executive Order 12988 
This final rule has been reviewed 
under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
Justice Reform. When this final rule is 
adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 
regulations that are inconsistent with 
this rule will be preempted; (2) no 
retroactive effect will be given to this 
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 
will not be required before parties may 
file suit in court challenging this rule. 
Effect on Small Entities 
This action affects only how foreign 
countries perform inspection and will 
not have any effect on domestic 
establishments. Therefore, the 
Administrator, FSIS, has made a 
determination that this final rule will 
not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, as 
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601). 
Expected Effect on FSIS, Other Federal 
Agencies, State and Local Governments 
and Foreign Countries 
This final action is expected to have 
no effect upon FSIS or other Federal 
agencies. It is likely to have only 
minimal effects on foreign countries. 
The action will not affect State and local 
governments. 
Expected Environmental Effects 
Amending 9 CFR parts 327 and 381 to 
bring the frequency with which foreign 
inspection systems are required to make 
supervisory visits to certified 
establishments into agreement with the 
frequency with which the Agency 
makes supervisory visits to domestic 
establishments is an activity that will 
not have a significant individual or 
cumulative effect on the human 
environment. Therefore, this action is 
appropriately subject to the categorical 
exclusion from the preparation of an 
environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement 
provided under 7 CFR 1b.4(6) of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 
regulations. 
Paperwork Requirements 
No new paperwork requirements are 
associated with this final rule. Foreign 
countries wanting to export meat and 
meat products to the United States are 
required to provide information to FSIS 
certifying that their inspection systems 
provide standards equivalent to those of 
the United States, and that the legal 
authority for the systems and their 
implementing regulations are equivalent 
to those of the United States, before they 
may start exporting such product to the 
United States. FSIS collects this 
information one time only. This 
information collection was approved 
under OMB number 0583–0094. The 
final rule contains no other paperwork 
requirements. 
Additional Public Notification 
Public awareness of all segments of 
rulemaking and policy development is 
important. Consequently, in an effort to 
ensure that the public and in particular 
minorities, women, and persons with 
disabilities, are aware of this final rule, 
FSIS will announce it on-line through 
the FSIS Web page located at http:// 
www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations 
_&_Policies/2005_Interim_&_Final 
_Rules_Index/index.asp. 
The Regulations.gov Web site is the 
central online rulemaking portal of the 
United States Government. It is being 
offered as a public service to increase 
participation in the Federal 
Government’s regulatory activities. FSIS 
participates in Regulations.gov and will 
accept comments on documents 
published on the site. The site allows 
visitors to search by keyword or 
Department or Agency for rulemakings 
that allow for public comment. Each 
entry provides a quick link to a 
comment form so that visitors can type 
in their comments and submit them to 
FSIS. The Web site is located at http:// 
www.regulations.gov/. 
FSIS also will make copies of this 
Federal Register publication available 
through the FSIS Constituent Update, 
which is used to provide information 
regarding FSIS policies, procedures, 
regulations, Federal Register notices, 
FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other 
types of information that could affect or 
would be of interest to our constituents 
and stakeholders. The update is 
communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail 
subscription service consisting of 
industry, trade, and farm groups, 
consumer interest groups, allied health 
professionals, scientific professionals, 
and other individuals who have 
requested to be included. The update 
also is available on the FSIS Web page. 
Through Listserv and the Web page, 
FSIS is able to provide information to a 
much broader, more diverse audience. 
In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail 
subscription service which provides 
automatic and customized access to 
selected food safety news and 
information. This service is available at 
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/news_and_ 
events/email_subscription/. Options 
range from recalls to export information 
to regulations, directives and notices. 
Customers can add or delete 
subscriptions themselves and have the 
option to password protect their 
account. 
List of Subjects 
9 CFR Part 327 
Imported products. 
9 CFR Part 381 
Imported poultry products, poultry 
inspection. 
■ For the reasons discussed in the 
preamble, FSIS is amending 9 CFR parts 
327 and 381, as follows: 
PART 327—IMPORTED PRODUCTS 
■ 1. The authority for part 327 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18, 
2.53. 
■ 2. Section 327.2(a)(2)(iv)(A) is revised 
to read as follows: 
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:16 Aug 02, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR1.SGM 03AUR1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULESFederal Register / Vol. 71, No. 149 / Thursday, August 3, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 
43961 
§ 327.2 Eligibility of foreign countries for 
importation of products into the United 
States. 
(a) * * * 
(2) * * * 
(iv) * * * 
(A) Periodic supervisory visits by a 
representative of the foreign inspection 
system to each establishment certified 
in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section to ensure that requirements 
referred to in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) 
through (H) of this section are being 
met: Provided, That such visits are not 
required with respect to any 
establishment during a period when the 
establishment is not operating or is not 
engaged in producing products for 
exportation to the United States; 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
PART 381—POULTRY PRODUCTS 
INSPECTION REGULATIONS 
■ 3. The authority for part 381 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 138f, 450; 21 U.S.C. 
451–470; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53. 
Subpart T—Imported Poultry Products 
■ 4. Section 381.196(a)(2)(iv)(A) is 
revised to read as follows: 
§ 381.196 Eligibility of foreign countries 
for importation of products into the United 
States. 
(a) * * * 
(2) * * * 
(iv) * * * 
(A) Periodic supervisory visits by a 
representative of the foreign inspection 
system to each establishment certified 
in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section to ensure that requirements 
referred to in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(A) 
through (H) of this section are being 
met: Provided, That such visits are not 
required with respect to any 
establishment during a period when the 
establishment is not operating or is not 
engaged in producing products for 
exportation to the United States; 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Done at Washington, DC, on July 31, 2006. 
Barbara J. Masters, 
Administrator. 
[FR Doc. E6–12565 Filed 8–2–06; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
14 CFR Part 39 
[Docket No. FAA–2006–24786; Directorate 
Identifier 2006–NM–087–AD; Amendment 
39–14702; AD 2006–16–02] 
RIN 2120–AA64 
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell 
Douglas Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC– 
9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC– 
9–87 (MD–87), and MD–88 Airplanes 
AGENCY: Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT). 
ACTION: Final rule. 
SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 
McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9–81 
(MD–81), DC–9–82 (MD–82), DC–9–83 
(MD–83), DC–9–87 (MD–87), and MD– 
88 airplanes. This AD requires installing 
a clamp, a bonding jumper assembly, 
and attaching hardware to the refueling 
manifold in the right wing refueling 
station area. This AD results from fuel 
system reviews conducted by the 
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to 
prevent arcing on the in-tank side of the 
fueling valve during a lightning strike, 
which could result in an ignition source 
that could ignite fuel vapor and cause a 
fuel tank explosion. 
DATES: This AD becomes effective 
September 7, 2006. 
The Director of the Federal Register 
approved the incorporation by reference 
of a certain publication listed in the AD 
as of September 7, 2006. 
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 
docket on the Internet at http:// 
dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 
Management Facility, U.S. Department 
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 
Washington, DC. 
Contact Boeing Commercial 
Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, 
California 90846, Attention: Data and 
Service Management, Dept. C1–L5A 
(D800–0024), for service information 
identified in this AD. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
William Bond, Aerospace Engineer, 
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, 
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 
Lakewood, California 90712–4137; 
telephone (562) 627–5253; fax (562) 
627–5210. 
SUPPLEMENTARY 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) 647–5227) 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 certain McDonnell Douglas 
Model DC–9–81 (MD–81), DC–9–82 
(MD–82), DC–9–83 (MD–83), DC–9–87 
(MD–87), and MD–88 airplanes. That 
NPRM was published in the Federal 
Register on May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28626). 
That NPRM proposed to require 
installing a clamp, a bonding jumper 
assembly, and attaching hardware to the 
refueling manifold in the right wing 
refueling station area. 
Comments 
We provided the public the 
opportunity to participate in the 
development of this AD. We received no 
comments on the NPRM or on the 
determination of the cost to the public. 
Conclusion 
We have carefully reviewed the 
available data and determined that air 
safety and the public interest require 
adopting the AD as proposed. 
Costs of Compliance 
There are about 994 airplanes of the 
affected design in the worldwide fleet. 
This AD will affect about 573 airplanes 
of U.S. registry. The required actions 
will take about 2 work hours per 
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 
per work hour. Required parts will cost 
about $8 per airplane. Based on these 
figures, the estimated cost of this AD for 
U.S. operators is $96,264, or $168 per 
airplane. 
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