[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62334-62335]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26173]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1867]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal
Regulations. The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates
listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for
comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county           Location and case       officer of         Community map        letter of map       Date of modification   Community
                                          No.               community          repository             revision                                   No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
    Pima........................  City of Tucson (18-  The Honorable       Planning and        https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 22, 2019........       040076
                                   09-1087P).           Jonathan            Development         portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Rothschild,         Services, 201
                                                        Mayor, City of      North Stone
                                                        Tucson, 255 West    Avenue, 1st
                                                        Alameda Street,     Floor, Tucson, AZ
                                                        Tucson, AZ 85701.   85701.

    Pima........................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Pima County Flood   https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 22, 2019........       040073
                                   Areas of Pima        Richard Elias,      Control District,   portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (18-09-       Chairman, Board     201 North Stone
                                   1087P).              of Supervisors,     Avenue, 9th
                                                        Pima County, 130    Floor, Tucson, AZ
                                                        West Congress       85701.
                                                        Street, 11th
                                                        Floor, Tucson, AZ
                                                        85701.
California:
    Fresno......................  City of Clovis (18-  The Honorable Bob   Planning and        https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 21, 2019........       060044
                                   09-0724P).           Whalen, Mayor,      Development, 1033   portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        City of Clovis,     5th Street,
                                                        1033 5th Street,    Clovis, CA 93612.
                                                        Clovis, CA 93612.
    Fresno......................  Unincorporated       The Honorable Sal   Fresno County,      https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 21, 2019........       065029
                                   Areas of Fresno      Quintero,           Department of       portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (18-09-       Chairman, Board     Public Works &
                                   0724P).              of Supervisors,     Planning, 2220
                                                        Fresno County,      Tulare Street,
                                                        2281 Tulare         6th Floor,
                                                        Street, Room 301,   Fresno, CA 93721.
                                                        Fresno, CA 93721.
Idaho: Bannock..................  City of Pocatello    The Honorable       City Hall, 911      https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 15, 2019........       160012
                                   (18-10-0482P).       Brian Blad,         North 7th Avenue,   portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Pocatello, ID
                                                        Pocatello, P.O.     83205.
                                                        Box 4169,
                                                        Pocatello, ID
                                                        83205.
Illinois:
    Tazewell....................  Unincorporated       The Honorable       Tazewell County     https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 14, 2019........       170815
                                   Areas of Tazewell    David Zimmerman,    McKenzie Building-  portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County, (18-05-      Chairman,           4th Floor, 11
                                   4174P).              Tazewell County     South 4th Street,
                                                        Board, McKenzie     Pekin, IL 61554.
                                                        Building, 11
                                                        South 4th Street,
                                                        Suite 432, Pekin,
                                                        IL 61554.
    Tazewell....................  Village of Morton    The Honorable Jeff  Village Hall, 120   https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb 14, 2019.........       170652
                                   (18-05-4174P).       Kaufman, Village    North Main          portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        President,          Street, Morton,
                                                        Village of          IL 61550.
                                                        Morton, P.O. Box
                                                        28, Morton, IL
                                                        61550.
Minnesota:
    McLeod......................  City of Glencoe (18- The Honorable       Administration      https://msc.fema.gov/  Jan. 24, 2019........       270263
                                   05-2850P).           Randy Wilson,       Building, 1107      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      11th Street East,
                                                        Glencoe,            Glencoe, MN 55336.
                                                        Administration
                                                        Building, 1107
                                                        11th Street East,
                                                        Glencoe, MN 55336.
    McLeod......................  Unincorporated       Mr. Paul Wright,    McLeod County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Jan. 24, 2019........       270616
                                   Areas of McLeod      County              Courthouse, 830     portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County Minnesota     Commissioner,       11th Street East,
                                   (18-05-2850P).       McLeod County,      Glencoe, MN 55336.
                                                        McLeod County
                                                        Courthouse, 830
                                                        11th Street East,
                                                        Glencoe, MN 55336.
Nebraska:
    Colfax......................  City of Schuyler     The Honorable       Municipal           https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 15, 2019........       310046
                                   (17-07-2227P).       David Reinecke,     Building, 1103 B    portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Mayor, City of      Street, Schuyler,
                                                        Schuyler, 1103 B    NE 68661.
                                                        Street, Schuyler,
                                                        NE 68661.
    Colfax......................  Unincorporated       Mr. Gil Wigington,  Colfax County       https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 15, 2019........       310426
                                   Areas of Colfax      Chairman, Colfax    Courthouse, 411     portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (17-07-       County, Board of    East 11th Street,
                                   2227P).              Commissioners,      Schuyler, NE
                                                        411 East 11th       68661.
                                                        Street, Schuyler,
                                                        NE 68661.
Ohio: Hamilton..................  Village of Amberley  The Honorable Tom   Municipal           https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 15, 2019........       390206
                                   (18-05-2008P).       Muething, Mayor,    Building, 7149      portal/advanceSearch.
                                                        Village of          Ridge Road,
                                                        Amberley, 7149      Cincinnati, OH
                                                        Ridge Road,         45237.
                                                        Cincinnati, OH
                                                        45237.
Oregon: Deschutes...............  Unincorporated       Mr. Alan Unger,     Deschutes County    https://msc.fema.gov/  Feb. 7, 2019.........       410055
                                   Areas of Deschutes   Commissioner,       Board of            portal/advanceSearch.
                                   County (18-10-       Deschutes County,   Commissioners,
                                   0743P).              1300 Northwest      1164 Northwest
                                                        Wall Street,        Bond Street,
                                                        Bend, OR 97708.     Bend, OR 99701.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-26173 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 97)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28751-28754]
[DOCID:fr19my08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0556; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With
Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851(-) Integrated Navigation Units

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to various aircraft equipped with certain
Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) integrated navigation units
(INUs). The existing AD, as one alternative for compliance, provides
for a one-time inspection to determine whether a certain modification
has been installed on the Honeywell Primus II NV-850 navigation
receiver module (NRM), which is part of the INU. In lieu of
accomplishing this inspection, and for aircraft found to have an
affected NRM, that AD provides for revising the aircraft flight manual
to include new limitations for instrument landing system approaches.
That AD also requires an inspection to determine whether certain other
modifications have been done on the NRM; and doing related
investigative, corrective, and other specified actions, as applicable;
as well as further modifications to address additional anomalies. This
proposed AD would extend the compliance time for a certain inspection
and associated actions. This proposed AD would also revise the
applicability to include additional affected INUs. This proposed AD
results from reports indicating that erroneous localizer and glideslope
indications have occurred on certain aircraft equipped with the subject
INUs. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the flight crew has
accurate localizer and glideslope deviation indications. An erroneous
localizer or glideslope deviation indication could lead to the aircraft
making an approach off the localizer, which could result in impact with
an obstacle or terrain.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
https://pubs.cas.honeywell.com or contact Honeywell International,
Inc., Commercial Electronic Systems, 21111 North 19th Avenue, Phoenix,
Arizona 85027-2708.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Kirk Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0556;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-028-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

    On October 13, 2006, we issued AD 2006-22-05, amendment 39-14802
(71 FR 62907, October 27, 2006), for various aircraft equipped with
certain Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) integrated navigation
units (INUs). That AD, as one alternative for compliance, provides for
a one-time inspection to determine whether a certain modification has
been installed on the Honeywell Primus II NV-850 navigation receiver
module (NRM), which is part of the INU. In lieu of accomplishing this
inspection, and for aircraft found to have an affected NRM, that AD
provides for revising the aircraft flight manual to include new
limitations for instrument landing system approaches. That AD also
requires an inspection to determine whether certain other modifications
have been done on the NRM; and doing related investigative, corrective,
and other specified actions, as applicable; as well as further
modifications to address additional anomalies. That AD resulted from
reports indicating that erroneous glideslope indications have occurred
on certain aircraft equipped with the subject INUs. We issued that AD
to ensure that the flightcrew has an accurate glideslope deviation
indication. An erroneous glideslope deviation indication could lead to
the aircraft making an approach off the glideslope, which could result
in impact with an obstacle or terrain.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2006-22-05, we have become aware of the need to
change three aspects of the existing AD:
    1. Additional INU part numbers need to be added to the
applicability.
    2. Paragraph (j) of the existing AD requires related investigative,
corrective, and other specified actions for certain NRMs before further
flight. Our intention was to allow the full compliance time for both
the inspection for the discrepant NRMs and the other associated actions
for those NRMs.

    3. We have determined that the existing AD's compliance time for
the inspection and other associated actions (paragraph (j) in the NPRM)
may be extended to 30 months and still provide an adequate level of
safety for the fleet.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other products of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2006-22-05 and retain its requirements, with revised
compliance times for a certain inspection and other associated actions.
This proposed AD would also revise the applicability to include
additional affected INUs.

Additional Changes to Existing AD

    Where paragraph (i) of the existing AD incorrectly refers to
paragraph (k), the proper reference should be to paragraph (j). We have
revised this proposed AD accordingly.
    We also clarified the unsafe condition by also referring to the
localizer (in addition to the glideslope).

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 3,063 aircraft of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. The manufacturer states
that it will supply required parts to existing customers at no cost.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Average
               Action                  Work hours    labor rate       Parts       Cost per        Number of U.S.-                  Fleet cost
                                                      per hour                    aircraft      registered aircraft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection for NRM modification                  1           $80            $0           $80  Up to 1,500............  Up to $120,000.
 level.
AFM revision........................             1            80             0            80  Up to 1,500............  Up to $120,000.
Modification (to Mod T                           1            80             0            80  Up to 1,500............  Up to $120,000.
 configuration).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed actions
specified in this NPRM, and that no operator would accomplish those
actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. We have been
advised, however, that the actions have already been done on some
affected airplanes. Therefore, the future economic cost impact of this
rule on U.S. operators is expected to be less than the cost impact
figures indicated above.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this 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 that the 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. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14802 (71 FR 62907, October 27, 2006) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Various Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2008-0556; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-028-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 3,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-22-05.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to various aircraft, certificated in any
category, equipped with any Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( )
integrated navigation unit (INU) identified in a service bulletin
identified in Table 1 of this AD. The aircraft include but are not
limited to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101
airplanes; Bombardier Model BD-700-1A10 series airplanes; Bombardier
Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 variant) series airplanes; Cessna Model
560, 560XL, and 650 airplanes; Dassault Model Mystere-Falcon 50
series airplanes; AvCraft Dornier Model 328-100 and -300 series
airplanes; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model
EMB-135 airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR,
-145MP, and -145EP airplanes; Learjet Model 45

airplanes; Raytheon Model Hawker 800XP and Hawker 1000 airplanes;
and Sikorsky Model S-76A, S-76B, and S-76C aircraft.

                                       Table 1.--INUs Affected by This AD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      INUs listed in Honeywell--                     Revision--                            Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Alert Service Bulletin 7510134-34-  001................................  March 4, 2003.
 A0016.
(2) Service Bulletin 7510134-34-0018..  Original...........................  July 8, 2004.
(3) Alert Service Bulletin 7510100-34-  Original...........................  February 28, 2003.
 A0034.
(4) Alert Service Bulletin 7510100-34-  Original...........................  July 11, 2003.
 A0035.
(5) Service Bulletin 7510100-34-0037..  Original...........................  July 8, 2004.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1: This AD applies to Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851(
) INUs installed on any aircraft, regardless of whether the aircraft
has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area
subject to the requirements of this AD. For aircraft that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with
paragraph (o) of this AD. The request should include an assessment
of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the
unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition
has not been eliminated, the request should include specific
proposed actions to address it.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports indicating that erroneous
localizer and glideslope indications have occurred on certain
aircraft equipped with the subject INUs. We are issuing this AD to
ensure that the flight crew has accurate localizer and glideslope
deviation indications. An erroneous localizer or glideslope
deviation indication could lead to the aircraft making an approach
off the localizer, which could result in impact with an obstacle or
terrain.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2006-22-05

Compliance Time for Action

    (f) For any INU identified in Table 2 of this AD: Within 5 days
after March 11, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-04-06, which was
superseded by AD 2006-22-05), accomplish the requirements of either
paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD. After December 1, 2006 (the
effective date of AD 2006-22-05), only accomplishing the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD is acceptable for
compliance with this paragraph.

               Table 2.--INUs Identified in AD 2006-22-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
P/N 7510100-811 through 7510100-814 inclusive.
P/N 7510100-831 through 7510100-834 inclusive.
P/N 7510100-901 through 7510100-904 inclusive.
P/N 7510100-911 through 7510100-914 inclusive.
P/N 7510100-921 through 7510100-924 inclusive.
P/N 7510100-931 through 7510100-934 inclusive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inspection to Determine Part Number

    (g) For any INU identified in Table 2 of this AD: Perform a one-
time general visual inspection of the modification plate for the
Honeywell Primus II NV-850 Navigation Receiver Module (NRM); part
number 7510134-811, -831, -901, or -931; which is part of the
Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) INU; to determine if Mod L
has been installed. The modification plate is located on the bottom
of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) INU, is labeled NV-
850, and contains the part number and serial number for the
Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM. If Mod L is installed, the letter L
will be blacked out. Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 7510100-34-
A0035, dated July 11, 2003, is an acceptable source of service
information for the inspection required by this paragraph.
    (1) If Mod L is installed, before further flight, do paragraph
(h) or (j) of this AD. After December 1, 2006, only accomplishment
of paragraph (j) is acceptable for compliance with this paragraph.
    (2) If Mod L is not installed, no further action is required by
this paragraph.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection
is defined as: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure,
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be
necessary to enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the
inspection area. This level of inspection is made under normally
available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting,
flashlight, or droplight and may require removal or opening of
access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be
required to gain proximity to the area being checked.''

Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    (h) For aircraft having an INU identified in Table 2 of this AD:
Revise the Limitations section of the AFM to include the following
statements (which may be accomplished by inserting a copy of the AD
into the AFM):

``Flight Limitations

    When crossing the Outer Marker on glideslope, the altitude must
be verified with the value on the published procedure.
    For aircraft with a single operating glideslope receiver, the
approach may be flown using normal procedures no lower than
Localizer Only Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA).
    For aircraft with two operating glideslope receivers, the
aircraft may be flown to the published minimums for the approach
using normal procedures if both glideslope receivers are tuned to
the approach and both crew members are monitoring the approach using
independent data and displays.''

Parts Installation

    (i) For aircraft having an INU identified in Table 2 of this AD:
As of March 11, 2003, no person may install a Honeywell Primus II
NV-850 NRM on which Mod L has been installed, on the Honeywell
Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) INU of any aircraft, unless paragraph
(h) or (j) of this AD is accomplished. As of December 1, 2006, only
accomplishment of paragraph (j) is acceptable for compliance with
this paragraph.

Inspection to Determine Modification Level of NRM

    (j) For any INU identified in Table 2 of this AD on which Mod L
was found to be installed during the inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, or for aircraft on which paragraph (h) of
this AD was accomplished: Within 30 months after December 1, 2006,
do an inspection of the modification plate on the Honeywell Primus
II NV-850 NRM; part number 7510134-811, -831, -901, or -931; which
is part of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) INU; to
determine if Mod L, N, P, R, or T is installed. The modification
plate located on the bottom of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-
851( ) INU is labeled NV-850, and contains the part number and
serial number for the Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM. If Mod L, N,
P, R, or T is installed, the corresponding letter on the
modification plate will be blacked out. Honeywell Alert Service
Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003, is an acceptable
source of service information for this inspection. If Mod T is
installed, no further action is required by this paragraph. If Mod
L, N, P, or R is installed, within 30 months after December 1, 2006,
do all applicable related investigative, corrective, and other
specified actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Honeywell

Alert Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003; and
Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-0037, dated July 8, 2004; to
ensure that the NRM is at the Mod T configuration. Once the actions
in this paragraph are completed, the AFM revision required by
paragraph (h) of this AD may be removed from the AFM.
    (k) If the inspection specified in paragraph (j) of this AD is
done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (f) of this
AD, paragraph (g) of this AD does not need to be done.

New Requirements of This AD

Inspection to Determine Mod Level

    (l) For any INU that is not identified in Table 2 of this AD:
Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-
time general visual inspection of the modification plate for the
Honeywell Primus II NV-850 Navigation Receiver Module (NRM); part
number 7510134-811, -831, -901, or -931; which is part of the
Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) INU; to determine whether Mod
L, N, P, R, or T is installed. The modification plate located on the
bottom of the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) INU is labeled
NV-850, and contains the part number and serial number for the
Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM. If Mod L, N, P, R, or T is
installed, the corresponding letter on the modification plate will
be blacked out. Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035,
dated July 11, 2003, is an acceptable source of service information
for this inspection.
    (1) If Mod T is installed: No further action is required by this
paragraph.
    (2) If Mod L, N, P, or R is installed: Within 30 months after
the effective date of this AD, do all applicable related
investigative, corrective, and other specified actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell Alert
Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035, dated July 11, 2003; and
Honeywell Service Bulletin 7510100-34-0037, dated July 8, 2004; to
ensure that the NRM is at the Mod T configuration.

    Note 3: For more information on the inspection specified in
paragraphs (g), (j), and (l) of this AD, refer to Honeywell
Technical Newsletter A23-3850-001, Revision 1, dated January 21,
2003.

Parts Installation

    (m) For aircraft that have an INU that is not identified in
Table 2 of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person
may install a Honeywell Primus II NV-850 NRM on which Mod L has been
installed on the Honeywell Primus II RNZ-850( )/-851( ) INU of any
aircraft, unless paragraph (l) is accomplished.

No Report

    (n) Where Honeywell Alert Service Bulletin 7510100-34-A0035,
dated July 11, 2003 (or any of the related service information
referenced therein), specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any aircraft 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-11104 Filed 5-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Cippolini bulbs: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 6 hours. Citron Citrus Fruit: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Cocoa beans: maximum application rate is 1.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours. Maximum number of fumigations is two with a 12 day retreatment interval.

Cocoa beans: when used in a vacuum chamber, the maximum application rate is 1.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 12 hours.

Copra: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Corn: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Corn, pop: use limited to vacuum chambers only. maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours. 53 Corn, sweet: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours.

Cucumbers: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 2.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours.

Eggplant: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours.

Filberts: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Garlic: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 2.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours.

Grapefruit: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Grapes: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 2.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Hickory nuts: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours. Honeydew melons: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 2.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours Horseradish: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours.

Kiwi fruit: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum 54 exposure period is 3 hours Kumquats: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Leafy vegetables: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Lemons: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Limes: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Macadamia nuts: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours. Muskmelons: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 2.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours Nectarines: maximum application rate is 5.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Oats: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Okra: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Onions: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 6 hours.

Oranges: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Parsnips: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours.

Peaches: maximum application rate is 5.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. 55 Peanuts: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Pears: maximum application rate is 5.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Peas ( with pods): maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Peas ( dried): maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Pecans: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Peppers: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Pimentos: maximum application rate is 2.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 3 hours.

Pineapples: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 2.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 6 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours Pistachios: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Plums: maximum application rate is 5.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Potatoes: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 6 hours.

Pumpkins: maximum application rate is 2.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Quinces: maximum application rate is 5.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Radishes: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. 56 Rice: APHIS only: when using a tarp, the maximum application rate is 9.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 12 hours. APHIS only when using a vacuum chamber, the maximum application rate is 12 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 12 hours. Users other than APHIS:

maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours Rutabagas: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 6 hours.

Rye: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Salsify roots: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 3 hours.

Sorghum ( grain): maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours. Squash ( summer): APHIS only: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours Squash ( winter): APHIS only: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 2.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours Squash, zucchini: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Strawberries: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. Sugar beets ( roots): maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Sweet potatoes: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. 57 Tangelos: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Tangerines: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours.

Tomatoes: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours.

Turnips ( roots) : maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. Walnuts: maximum application rate is 3.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Watermelons: APHIS only: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours. Users other than APHIS: maximum application rate is 2.5 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 2 hours Wheat: maximum application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 24 hours.

Yams: maximum application rate is 4.0 lb ai/ 1000 ft3 and maximum exposure period is 4 hours. 58 C. Conclusions The Agency is issuing this Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) document for commodity fumigation uses of methyl bromide, as announced in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. This RED document includes guidance and time frames for complying with any required label changes for products containing methyl bromide. The Agency has determined that all currently registered commodity fumigation uses of methyl bromide are eligible for reregistration provided that the mitigation measures are adopted on product labels.

The Agency has also determined that all methyl bromide tolerances are reassessed, as detailed in this document. There will be a 60 day public comment period for this document to allow stakeholders the opportunity to review and provide comments on this document.

Appendices Appendix A: Methyl Bromide Use Patterns Eligible For Reregistration Appendix B: Table of Generic Data Requirements and Studies Used to Make the Reregistration Decision for Methyl Bromide Appendix C: Technical Support Documents Appendix D: Bibliography Appendix E: Generic Data Call In Appendix F: Product Specific Data Call In Appendix G: EPA's Batching of Methyl Bromide Products for Meeting Acute Toxicity Data Requirements for Reregistration Appendix H: List of Registrants Sent Data Call Ins Appendix I: List of Available Related Documents and Electronically Available Forms Appendix J: Methyl Bromide: Phase 5 Health Effects Division ( HED) Human Health Risk Assessment for Commodity Uses. PC Code: 053201, DP Barcode: D304623," ( March 10, 2006)

Appendix K: Addendum To Phase 5 Health Effects Division ( HED) Human Health Risk Assessment For Commodity Uses. PC Code: 053201, DP Barcode: D304619 ( July 12, 2006)


Charge Questions

OPP’s Approach

OPP is seeking guidance on its approach to climate change to date and
suggestions for how to approach future work.

Comment on the approach that OPP used to evaluate the models in light of
the expected likely effects and impacts of climate change to determine
whether climate change would influence the inputs and parameters.

Of the areas identified as likely to be affected or the effects are
uncertain, please offer suggestions as to the likely importance of these
factors on risk assessment and if likely to be important.  Comment on
potential approaches to address the uncertainty.

Temporal and Spatial Considerations

OPP reviews chemicals and assesses risks as needed at least every 15
years.  Over a 15 year time period, pesticide use and crop residues from
monitoring data could change as a result of climate change.

Based on current projections, will the pace of climate change
significantly increase the uncertainty in our exposure assessments?

If yes, which inputs are likely to change in such a manner that the
uncertainty in the exposure assessment would significantly increase?
Comment on how OPP might explore this issue.

Over time, the environment will change due to climate change and these
changes will be manifested differently in different regions of the
country.  Irrespective of climate change, there already exists a wide
variety of climatic conditions across the country.  Because climatic
conditions greatly vary across the country, often data collected for
exposure assessments are from studies performed at multiple locations
chosen to be geographically representative of the entire country.

Please comment on the geographic changes anticipated due to climate
change relative to the existing climate diversity within the U.S.  Over
what time period might climate change significantly affect the range of
diversity in weather conditions in the U.S in such a way as to
significantly increase our uncertainty in pesticide exposure
assessments?

Use of Historic Data

All exposure assessments rely in some degree on historical data –
weather, residues on food, cultural practices, pesticide use practices,
etc.  In many situations data that are directly used as inputs into an
exposure assessment and can readily be updated with each successive
assessment.  For example, a dietary exposure assessment today would rely
on recent monitoring data, while an assessment in 5, 10 or 15 years from
now would rely on more up-to-date monitoring data than an assessment
conducted today.  In other situations, data are used to develop a
parameter in a model, such as the runoff curve discussed in section
III.B.1.e. of the background paper.  Please comment on the significance
of climate change on the reliability of embedded model parameters.  How
might OPP systematically approach an evaluation of the significance of
such model parameters?

Currently, OPP uses weather data from 1960-90 in its ecological
assessments, giving equal weight to every year.  OPP intends to acquire
more recent data.  Please comment about the effects of using these data
in light of climate change.  If this is viewed as an important factor,
will aggregating the data from 1960-2010 be appropriate in light of
climate change?  For example, would the use of data from the last 10
years be a more appropriate indicator of future weather patterns or
should OPP consider adding a predictive component to weather data?  If
the use of predictive models is appropriate, provide any sources of
ongoing research or relevant models that might be explored.

Priority Setting

Please consider a systematic approach for OPP to prioritize future work
on Climate Change.  Priority areas to help guide OPP to inputs/models
that would be most important to help assure that our assessments do not
underestimate exposure and risks (include magnitude and uncertainty).