Columbia River Basin One of the earliest studies of chinook salmon genetics in the Columbia River was by Kristiansson and McIntyre ( 1976), who reported allelic frequencies for 4 polymorphic loci in samples from 10 hatcheries, 5 of which were located along the coast and 5 in the lower Columbia River Basin. Significant frequency differences for SOD* were detected between spring and fall 86 run samples collected at the Little White Salmon Hatchery on the Columbia River, but not for spring and fall run samples from the Trask River Hatchery along the northern coast of Oregon. Significant allele frequency differences were also found between Columbia River samples as a group and Oregon coastal samples for PGM* and MDH*.

Utter et al. ( 1982) compared allelic frequencies at 12 polymorphic loci in samples of fallrun chinook salmon from the Priest Rapids Hatchery in the mid Columbia River and from Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River. These samples were taken over four years at each locality. Significant allele frequency differences between populations were detected for 5 loci.

Schreck et al. ( 1986) examined allele frequency variability at 18 polymorphic loci to infer genetic relationships among 56 Columbia River Basin chinook salmon populations. A hierarchical cluster analysis of genetic correlations between populations identified two major groups. The first contained spring run chinook salmon east of the Cascade Mountains and summer run fish in the Salmon River. Within this group they found three subclusters: 1) wild and hatchery spring run chinook salmon east of the Cascade Mountains, 2) spring run chinook salmon in Idaho, and 3) widely scattered groups of spring run chinook salmon in the White Salmon River Hatchery, the Marion Forks Hatchery, and the Tucannon River. A second major group consisted of spring run chinook salmon west of the Cascade Crest, summer run fish in the upper Columbia River, and all fall run fish. Three subclusters also appeared in this group: 1) spring and fall run fish in the Willamette River, 2) spring and fall run chinook salmon below Bonneville Dam, and 3) summer and fall run chinook salmon in the upper Columbia River. Schreck et al. ( 1986) also surveyed morphological variability among areas, and these results were reviewed in the Life History section of this status review.

Waples et al. ( 1991a) examined 21 polymorphic loci in samples from 44 populations of chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin. A UPGMA tree of Nei's ( 1978) genetic distances between samples showed three major clusters of Columbia River Basin chinook salmon: 1) Snake River spring and summer run chinook salmon, and mid and upper Columbia River spring run chinook salmon, 2) Willamette River spring run chinook salmon, 3) mid and upper Columbia River fall and summer run chinook salmon, Snake River fall run chinook salmon, and lower Columbia River fall and spring run chinook salmon. These results indicate that the timing of chinook salmon returns to natal rivers was not necessarily consistent with genetic subdivisions. For example, summer run chinook salmon in the Snake River were genetically distinct from summer run chinook salmon in the mid and upper Columbia River, but still had similar adult run timings. Spring run populations in the Snake, Willamette and lower, mid, and upper Columbia Rivers were also genetically distinct from each other but had similar run timings. Conversely, some populations with similar run timings, such as lower Columbia River " tule" fallrun fish and upper Columbia River " bright" fall run fish, were genetically distinct from one another. Juvenile outmigration also differed among some groups with similar adult run timing. For example, summer run juveniles in the upper Columbia River exhibit ocean type life history characteristics, but summer run chinook salmon in the Snake River migrate exhibit stream type life history characteristics. 87 In a status review of Snake River fall chinook salmon, Waples et al. ( 1991b) examined genetic relationships among fall run chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers ( Group 3 of Waples et al. 1991a) in more detail. A UPGMA cluster analysis of Nei's unbiased genetic distance, based on 21 polymorphic loci, indicated that " bright" fall run chinook salmon in the upper Columbia River were genetically distinct from those in the Snake River. Populations in the two groups were characterized by allele frequency differences of about 10 20% at several loci, and these differences remained relatively constant from year to year in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, allele frequency shifts from 1985 to 1990 for samples of fall run chinook salmon at Lyons Ferry Hatchery in the Snake River suggested that mixing with upper Columbia River fish had occurred. This is consistent with reports that stray hatchery fish from the upper Columbia River were inadvertently used as brood stock at the Lyons Ferry Hatchery. Samples of " bright" fall run chinook salmon from the Deschutes River and the Marion Drain irrigation channel in the Yakima River Basin also appeared in the same cluster with samples of fall run chinook salmon from the Snake River.

Genetic analysis of oceanic mixed stock harvests indicated differences in ocean distributions between " bright" and " tule" fall run chinook salmon from the Columbia River. Utter et al. ( 1987) estimated allelic frequencies for 17 polymorphic loci in baseline samples from 88 localities extending from southern British Columbia ( except 1 sample from northern British Columbia) through Washington and Oregon to northern California. These data were pooled on the basis of contingency table tests of allelic frequencies into 65 groups with genetically homogeneous populations. These groups were used to estimate the stock composition of fishery samples taken at ports of landing from the mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca to northern Oregon. Tagging returns ( Table 5 in Utter et al. 1987) indicated that " tule" fish tended to be caught in the coastal waters of Washington, whereas " upriver brights" tended to be caught in the commercial harvests of Alaska and British Columbia. The results of the mixed stock analysis for samples collected in 1982 and 1983 were consistent with tagging returns in indicating different ocean distributions of " tule" and upriver " bright" Columbia River chinook salmon.

In a study of genetic effects of hatchery supplementation on naturally spawning populations in the upper Snake River Basin, Waples et al. ( 1993) examined allele frequency variability at 35 polymorphic loci in 14 wild ( no hatchery supplementation), naturally spawning ( some hatchery supplementation), and hatchery populations of spring and summer run chinook salmon. Most populations were sampled over two years. An analysis of these data indicated that 96.6% of the genetic diversity existed as genetic differences among individuals within populations. Most of the remaining 3.4% was due to differences between localities, and only a negligible amount was due to allele frequency differences between spring and summer run chinook salmon. Results reveal a close genetic affinity in the upper Snake River between natural spawners that suggests either gene flow between populations or a recent common ancestry. Comparisons between hatchery and natural populations in the same river indicated that the degree of genetic similarity between them reflected the source of the brood stock in the hatchery. As expected, the genetic similarity between wild and hatchery fish, for which local wild fish were used as brood stock, was high. 88 In a study of upper Columbia River chinook salmon, Utter et al. ( 1995) examined allelefrequency variability at 36 loci in samples of 16 populations. A UPGMA tree of Nei's ( 1972) genetic distances between samples indicated that spring run populations were distinct from summer and fall run populations. The average genetic distance between samples from the two groups was about eight times the average of genetic distances between samples within each group. Allele frequency variability among spring run populations was considerably greater than that among summer and fall run populations in the upper Columbia River. The lack of strong allele frequency differentiation between summer and fall run samples indicated minimal reproductive isolation between these two groups of fish. Hatchery populations of spring run chinook salmon were genetically distinct from wild spring run populations, but hatchery populations of fall run chinook salmon were not genetically distinct from wild fall run populations.

Some studies have indicated that Snake River spring and summer run chinook salmon have reduced levels of genetic variability. Utter et al. ( 1989) estimated gene diversities with 25 polymorphic loci for 65 population units and found that gene diversities in the Snake River were lower than those in the Columbia River. Winans ( 1989) estimated levels of gene diversity with 33 loci for spring, summer, and fall run chinook salmon at 28 localities in the Columbia River Basin. Fall run chinook salmon tended to have significantly greater levels of gene diversity ( N= 12, mean H= 0.081) than both spring ( N= 17, H= 0.065) and summer run ( N= 3, mean H= 0.053) chinook salmon. Spring run fish in the Snake River had the lowest gene diversities ( N= 4, mean H= 0.044). However, Waples et al. ( 1991a) found that, with a larger sample of 65 loci, gene diversities in Snake River spring run and summer run chinook salmon were not as low as that suggested by earlier studies.

Recent, but unpublished, data are available for chinook salmon and will be discussed in the next section. However the results of the foregoing studies of Columbia and Snake River chinook salmon permit the following generalizations:

1) Populations of chinook salmon in the Columbia and Snake Rivers are genetically discrete from populations along the coasts of Washington and Oregon.

2) Strong genetic differences exist between populations of spring run and fall run fish in the upper Columbia and Snake Rivers. In the lower Columbia River, however, springrun fish are genetically more closely allied with nearby fall run fish in the lower Columbia River than with spring run fish in the Snake and upper Columbia Rivers.

3) Summer run fish are genetically related to spring run fish in some areas ( e. g., Snake River), but to fall run fish in other areas ( e. g., upper Columbia River).

4) Populations of fall run fish are subdivided into several genetically discrete geographical groups in the Columbia and Snake Rivers ( these populations will be discussed in detail in the next section). 89 5) Hatchery populations of chinook salmon tend to be genetically similar to the respective source populations used to found or augment the hatchery populations.

California and Oregon Bartley and Gall ( 1990) surveyed samples from 35 populations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and along the coast of northern California for genetic variability at up to 53 loci. Overall, genetic variability was detected at 40% ( 21) of the loci with the 0.95 criterion of polymorphism, but varied from 3 ( 5.8%) to 17 ( 32%) loci among samples. Cluster analysis of Nei's ( 1978) unbiased genetic distances between samples revealed three major clusters roughly corresponding to 1) the Klamath and Trinity Rivers populations, 2) Eel River populations, and 3) the Sacramento and San Joaquin River populations. Samples from eight coastal populations did not cluster together, but were scattered among samples in the three major clusters. One sample from the Omagar Creek pond rearing facility in the lower Klamath River drainage did not fall into any of the three major clusters. The average percentage of the total genetic variability contained within samples was 82.3%, and the remainder was due to differences among samples on various geographical scales. The greatest sources of geographical subdivision were among rivers within a drainage ( 6.1%) and among drainages within a region ( 5.4%), on average. Differences among samples within rivers ( 3.3%) and among regions ( 2.9%) represented smaller amounts of geographical heterogeneity. The authors did not distinguish among adult run times in their analyses.

Bartley et al. ( 1992) expanded the study of Bartley and Gall ( 1990) and surveyed up to 78 loci in samples from 37 chinook salmon populations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, northern coastal California, the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, and rivers along southern to middle coastal Oregon. The authors detected genetic variation at 47 ( 60.3%) loci. They found significant departures of genotypic proportions from Hardy Weinberg proportions in 8% of the samples overall, 5% ( 13 of 252 tests) in samples from wild populations, but 11% ( 24 of 210 tests) in samples of hatchery spawned juveniles. They also found a larger than expected number of departures from Hardy Weinberg proportions ( 13%, 13 of 97 tests) in wild and hatchery samples from the Klamath River Basin. In a large number of tests, 5% are expected to be " significant" because of Type I error, but a larger proportion of significant tests may indicate that juveniles with limited numbers of parents had been collected, or that juveniles from genetically distinct subpopulations had been included in a sample, or that the genetic model or interpreting electrophoretic banding patterns was incorrect, or that natural selection was occurring on some genotypes. Allelic frequencies estimated from some of these samples may, therefore, not represent discrete randomly mating populations.

From these data, Bartley et al. ( 1992) calculated Nei's ( 1972) genetic distances between populations and produced a UPGMA tree consisting of five clusters, each with a strong geographical component. One cluster included samples from populations in the lower Klamath and Smith Rivers of northern California and the Chetco and Rogue Rivers of southern Oregon, but also included a sample from Rock Creek Hatchery, which is located along the mid Oregon 90 coast. A second cluster included samples from the Eel River and from coastal rivers of northern California. A third cluster included samples from the upper Klamath and Trinity Rivers. A more distantly related cluster contained samples from the Oregon coast north of the Rogue River. The most distinct cluster included samples from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, which were not well differentiated from each other. A hierarchical gene diversity analysis, modeled a posteriori after the geographical subdivisions found in the cluster analysis of genetic identities, showed that 89.4% of the total genetic variability observed in the study was contained on average within subpopulations, 7.4% was due to differences among the 5 major groups detected in the UPGMA tree, and 3.2% was due to differences among populations within the groups on average. These results indicate that the major drainages from mid Oregon south each contain genetically distinct populations of chinook salmon.

Yip ( 1994) examined allozyme variability at 53 enzyme loci in 398 fish collected between September and December 1992 at the Trinity River Hatchery in the Klamath River drainage. About 40 fish returning to the hatchery were sampled each week for 11 weeks during the spawning season. Average heterozygosities in these samples ranged from 0.021 to 0.035 with a mean of 0.029. These low values were similar to the low values in Klamath River populations found by ( Utter et al. 1987) and are well below the average of 0.102 for 80 populations of chinook salmon ( Utter et al. 1987). The entry timing of spring and fall run fish into the Trinity River Hatchery was estimated from fish with coded wire tags in the years 1989 92 and 1994. Based on these returns, the weekly samples for genetic analysis were divided a priori into two groups, weeks 1 4 and weeks 5 11. Tests for allele frequency differences were made with 5 polymorphic loci. Not all of the fish used in the genetic analysis had coded wire tags, so there may have been a some overlap between spring and fall run fish in the middle of the spawning season when they entered the hatchery. The sums of the G statistics for individual tests were not significant for weekly samples within either group, but were highly significant ( P< 0.01) for the between group comparisons. These results were interpreted to indicate that spring and fall run chinook salmon returning to the hatchery were genetically different. The analysis of temporal run time differences was continued in 1994 with allele frequencies for three polymorphic loci, GPI B2*, sMEP 1*, and PGK 2*. ( Yip et al. 1996). As in 1992, comparisons of allele frequencies between dates within the 1994 spring and fall runs were not significant. Comparisons between allele frequencies between 1992 and 1994 for the spring run were not significant, but there was a significant overall difference between 1992 and 1994 fall run fish. An approximate F ratio, based on the sums of the G tests for within group allele frequency heterogeneity, was used to test whether between run heterogeneity was greater than temporal differences within runs. This test was significant and was concordant with the conclusions of the earlier study that spring and fall run chinook salmon were genetically discrete.

Vilkitis et al. ( 1994) used RFLP analysis of internal transcribed spacers of ribosomal DNA, and randomly amplified polymorphic DNA ( RAPD) to measure the level of divergence between the spring and fall runs at 4 locations in the Salmon River, California. This preliminary study of samples, collected during 1992 93, found distinct genotypes in spring and fall run 91 chinook salmon that indicated there were differences between locations, yet did not present any quantitative information on the actual level of divergence.

In tests for between year differences in allele frequencies at an average of 10 polymorphic loci in samples from hatchery and wild populations in Oregon, Waples and Teel ( 1990) found a greater number of significant tests between years for hatchery samples than for samples from naturally spawning populations. The greater allele frequency instability between years in the hatcheries was attributed to the use of an effective number of parents less than 50 in many hatchery propagation programs, even though the numbers of returning adults was much higher.

Populations of chinook salmon in California have also been examined for repeat length polymorphisms at microsatellite loci. Hedgecock et al. ( 1995) analyzed samples of fall, late fall, winter, and spring run chinook salmon populations in the Sacramento River for variability at a single locus. Winter run samples included fish from 1) 1995 brood stock from the Coleman National Fish Hatchery ( CNFH), 2) 1995 carcasses from the Sacramento River, and 3) 1991 94 CNFH brood stock. Spring run fish were sampled at Deer Creek, and fall and late fall run fish were sampled from Battle Creek Hatchery stock. The authors concluded that winter run fish were distinct from spring, fall and late fall run fish but that winter run brood stock in CNFH may have included a genetic contribution from spring run fish, not only in 1995, but also in previous years. Banks et al. ( Bodega Marine Laboratory, Bodega Bay, CA. Unpublished, 1996.) extended the study of these samples with an analysis of four additional microsatellite loci. A UPGMA tree of Nei's ( 1978) genetic distance showed that fall and late fall run fish were most similar among run types. Even so, a randomized chi square test ( Roff and Bentzen 1989) showed that allele frequencies for 1 of the 5 loci in fall and late fall run fish were significantly different. Spring run fish were the next most closely related to fall and late fall run fish, but showed significant allele frequency differences with fall or late fall run fish at 7 of the 10 possible comparisons. Winter run chinook salmon was a distant outlier to the three other runs, and showed significant allele frequency differences for 13 of the possible 15 comparisons with the other run types. The average F ST over the 5 loci was 0.084 and represents considerable divergence among the run types. These results demonstrate significant levels of reproductive isolation between winter run fish and the other three run types, and between spring run fish and fall and late fall run fish in the Sacramento River. It is difficult, however, to evaluate the importance of these run time differences relative to run time differences in populations elsewhere, because of the lack of a coast wide data base for these microsatellite loci.

Nielsen ( 1995) surveyed sequence variability in a 164 base pair segment of the control region of mtDNA in California Central Valley chinook salmon from 8 rivers, 5 hatcheries, and the Guadalupe Slough. These samples included spring, fall, late fall, and winter run fish. Ten haplotypes were defined by 7 nucleotide substitutions: 4 transversions, 2 transitions, and an 81 base pair insertion. Although the analysis of a single locus should be used cautiously, the relatively large sample sizes in this study provided considerable power to test some hypotheses of population structure. A significant haplotypic frequency difference was found between two successive years for returning adults at one of two hatcheries. None of the tests for haplotype 92 frequency differences between pairs of wild fall run samples was significant. However, frequencies in some fall run wild samples were significantly different from frequencies in samples of fall run hatchery populations. Haplotypic frequencies in samples from Guadalupe Slough were significantly different from each of the four run types, but were not significantly different from haplotype frequencies at the Feather and Merced River hatcheries. Significant differences appeared between each of the four run types. Nucleotide diversity, the average level of sequence divergence between haplotypes, was small, ranging from 0.001 to 0.009 between run types and averaging 0.004 in the pooled sample. Haplotype diversity ( analogous to single locus heterozygosity) ranged from 0.07 in winter run chinook salmon to 0.64 in late fall run chinook salmon, and averaged 0.42 over samples. A gene diversity analysis of haplotypic frequencies indicated that 84.7% of the total variability was contained, on average, within run time and 15.3% was due to differences between run times. This level of differentiation among run types is high, but is similar to differentiation between run types in some other regions based on allozyme frequencies.

Levels of Genetic Differentiation among Populations A summary of representative estimates of gene diversity statistics appears in Table 2 for chinook salmon and other species of salmon and sea run trout. The geographical areas covered in the studies listed in the table are similar, except for the studies of coho salmon ( Wehrhahn and Powell 1987, Reisenbichler and Phelps 1987), which were conducted over smaller areas. Genetic subdivision among populations within drainages or among drainages ( or adult run type) was estimated with G ST= H S/ H T, where H S is the average within population gene diversity and H T is the total gene diversity, disregarding genetic subdivision. The percentage of gene diversity contained within populations, on average over loci, ranges from about 80% to about 98% in 93 Table 2. Gene diversity structure ( within and among populations in drainages, and among drainages or run types) for chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and other species of salmon.

Region Within Pop. Among Pop. in Drainages Among Drainages or Run Types Reference Chinook Salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)) Alaska ( AK) 94.1 5.9 Gharrett et al. 1987 Pacific Northwest 87.7 4.6 7.7 Utter et al. 1989 Oregon ( OR) California ( CA) 82.3 3.3 14.4 Bartley and Gall 1990 OR CA 89.4 10.6 Bartley et al. 1992 CA 84.7 15.3 Nielsen 1995 Chum Salmon ( O. keta) Japan Russia 96.2 3.8 Winans et al. 1994 SE AK British Columbia ( BC) 97.3 2.7 Kondzela et al. 1994 BC WA 97.2 0.3 2.5 Phelps et al. 1994 Coho Salmon ( O. kisutch) Southern B. C. 91.4 8.6 Wehrhahn and Powell 1987 Northern WA 95.1 9.0 4.0 Reisenbichler and Phelps 1987 Pink Salmon ( O. gorbuscha) ( Even Year) B. C. WA 98.5 1.5 Hard et al. 1996 AK 96.4 1.3 2.3 Gharrett et al. 1988 Pink Salmon ( Odd year) B. C. WA 97.9 2.1 Hard et al. 1996 Sockeye Salmon ( O. nerka) B. C. 82.8 8.0 9.2 Wood et al. 1994 WA, B. C., Idaho 84.7 15.3 Winans et al. 1996 Steelhead ( O. mykiss) WA 98.2 1.8 Reisenbichler and Phelps 1987 OR CA 98.3 1.7 Reisenbichler and Phelps 1987 94 species of salmon and anadromous trouts. Chinook salmon in the Pacific Northwest tend to show greater levels of genetic subdivision among populations ( G ST 11 18%) than do chum, coho, pink salmon ( G ST 2 9%), and steelhead ( G ST 1.7%) in many of the same areas. Like chinook salmon, sockeye salmon ( O. nerka) tend to show a greater degree of genetic subdivision among populations ( G ST 18%) than do other species of salmon. Chinook salmon populations in Alaska tend to show less genetic differentiation ( G ST 5.9%) than do southern populations in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California.

New Studies To examine evidence for reproductively isolated populations or groups of populations, we analyzed allelic frequencies collected over 15 years by geneticists at NMFS, University of California at Davis, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. This set of data included both published and unpublished allelic frequencies collected with standardized laboratory procedures and compiled for use by participating fishery management agencies. Complete sets of data were available for 31 polymorphic loci: mAAT 1*, sAAT 1,2*, sAAT 3*, sAAT 4*, ADA 1*, ADA 2*, mAH 4*, sAH*, GPI A*, GR*, HAGH*, mIDHP 2*, sIDHP 1*, sIDHP 2*, LDH B2*, LDH C*, mMDH 2*, sMDH A1,2*, sMDHB1,2 sMEP 1*, MPI*, PEPA*, PEPB 1*, PEPD 2*, PEPLT*, PGDH*, PGK 2*, PGM 1*, PGM 2*, sSOD 1*, TPI 4*. Two loci, mAH 4* and GR*, were not available for Alaska chinook salmon samples, so analyses including these samples were based on only 29 loci. For populations sampled more than 1 year   some as many as 3 or 4 years   allelic frequencies for each locus were combined, and the pooled frequencies were used to represent the population frequencies. In several instances, allelic frequencies for neighboring populations were also combined, if the sum of the individual G tests of frequencies between samples, divided by the sum of the degrees of freedom was not significant. ( This data set also serves as a population baseline for estimating the stock contributions of chinook salmon to mixed population ocean or river mouth harvests, chiefly along the coasts of Washington and Oregon.) A total of 193 populations extending from Alaska to California were included in the present analyses ( Table 3 and Fig. 18). We calculated Rogers' ( 1972), Nei's unbiased ( 1978), and Cavalli Sforza and Edwards' ( 1967) chord distances between samples, and searched for genetically discrete geographical groups with multidimensional scaling in three dimensions and with the UPGMA tree algorithm.

Regional patterns of genetic variability All 193 population units were included in the first analysis to examine large scale geographical patterns of genetic structure among chinook salmon populations from Alaska to California. A major feature of the UPGMA tree and MDS analysis ( Fig. 19) of these samples was a clear genetic separation between populations with stream type life histories and those with ocean type life histories. Stream type populations extend from Alaska, through northern British


[Federal Register: October 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55126-55130]
[DOCID:fr27oc09-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0018; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-01-AD;
Amendment 39-16044; AD 2009-21-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF6-80C2
Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2 series turbofan engines with
certain thrust reverser ballscrew gearbox assembly adjustable-length
end actuators installed. This AD requires initial visual inspections
and repetitive replacements of the \3/8\-inch rod-ends installed on the
thrust reverser ballscrew gearbox assembly adjustable-length end
actuators. This AD also allows an optional terminating action to those
repetitive replacements. This AD also requires initial visual
inspections and replacements, if necessary, of the other hardware
connecting the thrust reverser transcowls to the engine. This AD
results from reports of four failures of rod-ends on certain thrust
reverser ballscrew gearbox assembly adjustable-length end actuators,
leading to partial or complete separation of the transcowl from the
engine and airplane during thrust reversal. We are issuing this AD to
prevent loss of asymmetric thrust and thrust control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 1, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations as of December 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD
from Middle River Aircraft Systems, 103 Chesapeake Park Plaza, MF 46,
Baltimore, MD 21220; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. Richards, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(781) 238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-80C2 series
turbofan engines with certain thrust reverser ballscrew gearbox
assembly adjustable-length end actuators installed. We published the
proposed AD in the Federal Register on March 16, 2009 (74 FR 11043).
That action proposed to require initial visual inspections and
repetitive replacements of the \3/8\-inch rod-ends installed on the
thrust reverser ballscrew gearbox assembly adjustable-length end
actuators. That action also proposed to allow optional terminating
action to those repetitive replacements. That action also proposed to
require initial visual inspections and replacements, if necessary, of
the other hardware connecting the thrust reverser transcowls to the
engine.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Continue Operating to Next C-Check

    Lufthansa Technik asks if the current risk assessment for the \3/
8\-inch rod-ends failure also takes into account mixed configurations,
meaning lower or upper position with \7/16\-inch or fixed configuration
rod-ends. The commenter states that if so, then a mixed configuration
should therefore allow the operator to continue operating until next C-
Check without any higher risk.

The commenter points out that transcowl liberations were already
communicated via FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin No. NE-
08-44 and GE All Operators Wire 07/CF6/012, where it was stated that
the thrust reverser is designed to be able to continue normal operation
to the next C-Check with a single failed actuator at either the upper
or lower position.
    We do not agree. All of the failure events occurred following the
failure of only one rod-end. Additionally, two of the four failures
were partial liberations, where one rod-end stayed intact, and only the
section of the transcowl near the failed rod-end tore apart and
liberated from the engine and aircraft. Additionally, the
manufacturer's life assessment shows that a thrust reverser operating
with a failed rod-end may not be capable of operating safely until the
next C-Check.

Proposal To Change Optional Terminating Action Paragraph

    Honeywell Engine Systems and Accessories proposes that the Optional
Terminating Action paragraph should be changed to the following: ``As
an optional terminating action to the repetitive \3/8\-inch rod-end
replacements required by this AD, replace the \3/8\-inch adjustable
rod-ends with a \7/16\-inch adjustable rod-end and nut, P/N 3238729-1
and 3238730-1 respectively, or you may replace the adjustable end
actuator P/N 3272602-2, -3 with a fixed end actuator P/N 3275538-2, -3.
Use paragraph 3.E. (1) of Middle River Aircraft Systems (MRAS) Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) No CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 1, dated
February 13, 2009, to do the replacements.'' The commenter states that
a shop visit is required to upgrade \3/8\-inch adjustable rod-end
actuators P/N 3272602-2,-3 to the \7/16\-inch adjustable rod-ends. In
the proposed AD, there is a reference to replacing the \3/8\-inch rod
ends with either a fixed length rod-end, P/N 3238726-1, -2 or MS9560-
08. These two parts, P/N 3238726-1,-2 and MS9560-08, are components of
and designed for, the fixed length actuator P/N 3275538-2, -3. These
parts will not fit onto an adjustable end actuator, P/N 3272602-2, -3.
    We agree. However, we are not specifying the part numbers for the
replacement rod-ends, to prevent prohibiting installation of third
party equipment that has been certified to be installed on the aircraft
and has not been shown to create a safety risk. We are also updating
the referenced Service Bulletin to Revision 3, dated September 10,
2009, in place of Revision 1.

Proposal To Change Applicability Paragraph

    Onur Air proposes that applicability paragraph (c) be changed to
state that if the lower end actuator is a locking actuator assembly
(part number 3275546-1, 3275546-2, 3275548-1, or 3275548-2), then the
AD does not apply. This change would establish the same effectivity of
parts for both the AD and MRAS ASB, and would eliminate confusion.
    We do not agree. Even if a locking actuator assembly is installed
in the lower actuator position, a \3/8\-inch rod-end may be installed
in the upper actuator position. MRAS ASB No. 78A1162 Revision 1, dated
February 13, 2009; Revision 2, dated June 22, 2009; and Revision 3,
dated September 10, 2009, clarify that reverser halves that have a
locking actuator assembly installed at the lower actuator position and
an adjustable-length end actuator with \3/8\-inch rod-end installed at
the upper actuator position, are affected. We did not change the AD.

Request for Rod-End Serial Numbers

    Onur Air states that because the proposed AD and associated Service
Bulletin require a repetitive replacement of \3/8\-inch rod-ends at
11,000 flight cycle intervals, the rod-ends should have physical serial
numbers associated with them. The rod-ends need to be traceable to
comply with the 11,000 cycle repetitive inspection and without a serial
number, replacement data cannot be monitored or proven.
    We do not agree. The rod-ends themselves are not serialized, but
they can be tracked through the actuator assemblies. Only one rod-end
is installed per actuator, so tracking the actuator assembly will track
the number of cycles that the rod-end has accumulated. We did not
change the AD.

Extend the Compliance Time to Next C-Check

    Onur Air, FedEx Express, and Lufthansa Technik suggest that the
initial compliance time be extended from within 500 flight cycles from
the effective date of the AD to within the next C-Check after the
effective date of the AD. The commenters cite that due to some airlines
not having access to the MRAS component maintenance manual, it would be
difficult to replace the clevis fasteners found failed as required in
proposed AD paragraph (g)(4). Additionally, some replacement work would
be more suitably done off-wing as opposed to at the next on-wing
inspection.
    We do not agree. The compliance time of 500 flight cycles is based
on component life calculations. Additionally, a C-Check is not defined
consistently across the industry, and may be performed at a variety of
intervals depending on the operator's maintenance schedule, some of
which may be significantly longer than the 500 flight-cycle-limit
mandated in this AD.

Disagreement With the Unsafe Condition Statement

    Boeing, GE, and MRAS state that they disagree with the proposed AD
unsafe condition statements of ``possible loss of thrust control,
asymmetric thrust, increased stopping distance''. They state that
conditions are not the expected result based on a review of the event
on the Boeing 767 airplane. There was no indication, neither tactile
nor flight deck light, that alerted the pilot that the event had
occurred. The only effect from the failed rod-end at the airplane level
was the parts on the runway. There was no reported thrust control
problem or airplane control problem. The statement ``hazardous debris
on the runway'' however, is accurate. The commenters state that this
information was determined as not a safety matter. This was based on
the analysis showing there was no control issue. Additionally,
transcowl liberation does not result in the loss of engine thrust
control.
    We do not agree. Although one particular case may not have needed
crew response, other instances of transcowl liberation that led to the
development of this AD included reports of airplane yaw upon loss of
the transcowl. The possibility of this occurring again led to the
unsafe conditions of ``possible loss of asymmetric thrust and thrust
control.'' Loss of thrust control is included, because the asymmetric
thrust created by transcowl liberation is not commanded by the crew. We
changed the AD to simplify the unsafe condition by addressing only the
conditions that pose an immediate threat to the aircraft.

Request To Re-Examine the Cost of Compliance

    FedEx Express, GE, and MRAS request that the FAA re-examine the
criteria and considerations used to estimate the cost of compliance for
accomplishing the proposed AD. The true costs to U.S. operators will be
higher than the figures published in the NPRM. Revised cost estimates
should be provided which also reflect transcowl rigging work-hours as
well as cost for repetitive accomplishment (versus termination),
reworking common end actuator hardware installed on non-

CF6-80C2 engines, and include adjustment for higher levels of
discrepant clevis fastener discoveries. The commenters state that the
work-hours quoted, need for repetitive inspections, percentage of
transcowls needing repair work, and parts replacement are not
reflective of what the actual operating fleet will encounter.
    We agree. We updated the number of work-hours to provide a more
accurate accounting for the cost of this AD. Our best, and most
substantiated, estimate of parts expected to fail is about 10%,
therefore we did not change the percentage in our calculations.

Hardware Not Presently Installed

    FedEx Express requests that proposed AD paragraph (h) be clarified
with regards to addressing what actions, if any, should be applied to
end actuator assemblies with the \3/8\-inch diameter rod-ends that are
identical to the subject hardware specified in the proposed AD, but
which are not presently installed on any CF6-80C2 series engine thrust
reverser. After the initial 500 flight cycle compliance period, the
installation of end actuators with such rod-ends could result in
potential noncompliance with the intent of the AD. The commenter
recommends additional language that will direct the inspection of such
actuator rod-ends before installation on CF6-80C2 series engine thrust
reversers, especially after the initial 500 flight-cycle compliance
period has been exceeded.
    We do not agree. This AD addresses what actions are required for
end actuator assemblies installed on a CF6-80C2 engine. Any assembly
installed on an engine affected by this AD is subject to the
inspections and replacements as defined in this AD. Also, the AD limits
which rod-ends may be installed on an engine. If an actuator assembly
is to be installed on an engine, it must be verified that all parts
comply with this AD. We did not change the AD.

Include Additional Part Numbers and Define Wear Limits

    American Airlines requests that additional part numbers for
replacement parts should be included in paragraphs 1.E and 2.A.(1) of
MRAS ASB No. 78A1162. Also, the commenter requests that paragraph
3.D.(3) of this ASB should define wear limits to the torsion arm to
prevent structurally sound torsion arms from being removed due to minor
surface damage. The additional part numbers would allow parts to be
purchased from vendors other than Honeywell or MRAS.
    We do not agree. We are not incorporating by reference Service
Bulletin paragraphs 1.E., 3.D.(3), and 2.A.(1) in the AD. Therefore,
these paragraphs are not mandated by the FAA. We did not change the AD.

Specifically Identify Items To Be Inspected

    American Airlines states that in the proposed AD in the ``FAA's
Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD'' section, it should
not state generally that ``the other hardware that connects the thrust
reverser transcowl to the engine'' is subject to initial inspection and
replacement. Rather, this section should specifically identify the
items to be targeted in the initial inspection and replacement actions.
    We do not agree. The ``FAA's Determination and Requirements of the
Proposed AD'' section is a summary. The specific hardware needing
inspection per this AD is defined in paragraph (f) of this AD. We did
not change the AD.

Request To Reference Alert Service Bulletin Revision 2

    GE and MRAS state that all references to ASB No. S/B 78A1162,
Revision 1, should be changed to ASB No. S/B 78A1162, Revision 2,
before the AD is issued.
    We agree that we should reference the latest revision of the ASB.
We changed the AD to reference the latest ASB revision which is
Revision 3, dated September 10, 2009. We also updated the previous
credit paragraph (k) to include Revision 1 and Revision 2.

Remove Phrase From Discussion Section

    GE and MRAS request that, in the proposed AD Discussion section, we
remove the phrase ``or the CDU clevis pin to lose its retaining
capability''. There has never been a field finding or event
investigation that indicates that an actuator-out condition contributes
to the CDU clevis pin losing its retaining capability.
    We do not agree. Although the AD does not address the loss of CDU
clevis pin retaining capability leading to the failure of an actuator
rod end, the clevis pins should still be inspected to ensure the part
is in good condition and is held securely in place. We did not change
the AD.

Remove Repetitive Replacements of \3/8\-Inch Rod-Ends From the AD

    GE and MRAS request that we remove the repetitive replacements of
\3/8\-inch rod-ends from the AD. The commenters do not envision the
repetitive need for on-wing replacements of \3/8\-inch rod-ends, and
state that the replacement of \3/8\-inch rod-ends with \7/16\-inch or
fixed length rod-ends would provide terminating action.
    We do not agree. Repetitively replacing the \3/8\-inch rod-ends
within the cyclic accumulation defined in the AD provides an adequate
level of safety. Requiring replacement of all \3/8\-inch rod-ends with
\7/16\-inch or fixed length rod-ends would require considerably more
effort for a number of engines. Although it is an acceptable
terminating action, it is not the only course of action that resolves
the unsafe condition. We did not change the AD.

Update the Applicability Section

    GE and MRAS request that the Applicability section be updated to
take into account the possibility of \3/8\-inch rod-ends with part
numbers other than those defined in this AD being installed. They state
that the AD should apply to all \3/8\-inch rod-ends, including those
which may be a third-party design which have not been validated through
this AD.
    We agree. The AD needs to ensure that all \3/8\-inch rod-ends are
replaced, except as noted in the AD itself. We updated the wording of
the Applicability section, as well as other affected sections in the
AD, to reflect this.

Inspection and Replacement Paragraphs Should Be Expanded

    GE and MRAS state that in the compliance section, under the
``Visual Inspection and Fastening Hardware Replacements'' heading, the
paragraphs used for the inspection and replacement should be expanded
to read ``Use paragraph 3.B.(1) and 3.B.(2)''. Additionally, the phrase
``clevis brackets'' should be replaced with ``clevis assembly'',
because this is more appropriate nomenclature. These paragraphs were
omitted in the proposed AD, but are needed to provide instructions on
part inspection.
    We agree. We incorporated by reference these paragraphs into the
AD; however, we excluded the reporting requirements in those
paragraphs, as they are not required by this AD. We also changed clevis
bracket to clevis assembly.

Allow Deferral of the Repair and Deactivate the Thrust Reverser

    GE and MRAS state that in the compliance section, under the
``Visual Inspection and Fastening Hardware Replacements'' heading, the
proposed AD paragraph (g)(4), should be reworded as follows: ``If loose
or missing clevis fasteners are found,

remove and replace the clevis fasteners, or defer the repair and
deactivate the thrust reverser per existing MEL limits. Use paragraph
3.F.(2) of MRAS CF6-80C2 ASB No. 78A1162 Revision 2, dated June 22,
2009, to do the replacements or to deactivate the thrust reverser.
Deactivation is not allowed/specified if referring only to steps
3.F.(2)(a) through 3.F.(2)(c).
    We agree that the AD needs to allow thrust reverser deactivation.
We changed the AD to allow deactivation of the thrust reverser.

Change the Company Contact Information

    GE and MRAS request that under ``Related Information'' the company
contact information be changed to ``attn: Product Support Engineering;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for a copy of the service information
identified in this AD.'' MRAS Warranty Support does not provide service
information. MRAS Product Support Engineering distributes service
bulletins via e-mail, not by telephone or fax.
    We partially agree. We added that contact information.

Remove Documentation Requirements

    GE and MRAS request that we remove from the AD the documentation
requirements that are defined in paragraphs 3.C.(3)(b) and 3.E.(5) of
the Service Bulletin.
    We agree. We excluded those paragraphs from the incorporation by
reference of the Service Bulletin, in the AD.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 750 GE CF6-80C2 series
turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also
estimate that it will take about 1.5 work-hours per engine to perform
the inspection, one work-hour per engine to perform the rod-end
replacement, and 48 work-hours per engine to perform the clevis
assembly replacement. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
Required rod-ends will cost about $508 per engine. We estimate that 75
engines will require clevis bracket replacement. Required replacement
clevis assemblies and associated labor will cost about $1,246,200.
Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S.
operators to be $1,777,200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2009-21-07 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-16044. Docket No.
FAA-2009-0018; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-01-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
1, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2
series turbofan engines with thrust reverser ballscrew gearbox
assembly adjustable-length end actuators having \3/8\-inch rod-ends
installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to,
Airbus A300-600/R/F and A310-200/300, and Boeing 747-200B/300/400/
400D/400F, 767-200/300/300F/400ER, and MD-11 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of four failures of rod-ends on
certain thrust reverser ballscrew gearbox assembly adjustable-length
end actuators, leading to partial or complete separation of the
transcowl from the engine and airplane during thrust reversal. We
are issuing this AD to prevent loss of asymmetric thrust and thrust
control.

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.

Visual Inspection and Fastening Hardware Replacements

    (f) Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, do the following:
    (1) Inspect all translating cowl clevis pin retaining clips and
associated fastening hardware, including those on the center drive
unit (CDU), to ensure they are properly assembled and securely
fastened in place. If a retaining clip is not completely covering
the clevis pin and firmly attached to the clevis, remove and replace
the fastening hardware. Use paragraphs 3.B.(1) and 3.B.(2),
excluding 3.B.(2)(a), of Middle River Aircraft Systems (MRAS) Alert
Service Bulletin (ASB) No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 3, dated
September 10, 2009, to do the inspections.
    (2) Remove and inspect all clevis pins for physical damage or
significant corrosion. Use paragraphs 3.C.(1) through 3.C.(3),
excluding the recording requirement in paragraph 3.C.(3)(b) of MRAS
ASB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 3, dated September 10,

2009, to do the removals, inspections, and part disposition as
necessary.
    (3) Inspect the clevis assemblies and four clevis fasteners at
each of the clevis assemblies (upper, center, and lower) for
structural integrity. Use paragraphs 3.F.(1), excluding 3.F.(1)(c)
of MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 3, dated September
10, 2009, to do the inspections.
    (4) If loose or missing clevis fasteners are found, remove and
replace the clevis fasteners, or defer the repair and deactivate the
thrust reverser. Use paragraph 3.F.(2) of MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2 S/B
78A1162, Revision 3, dated September 10, 2009, to do the
replacements.

Initial Rod-End Replacements

    (g) For all \3/8\-inch translating cowl adjustable-length
actuator rod-ends having more than 600 flight cycles-since-new on
the effective date of this AD, replace them with P/N M81935/1-6, or
other approved part number, zero time rod-ends within 500 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD. Use paragraph 3.E.,
excluding both 3.E.(8) and the recording requirement in paragraph
3.E.(5) of MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 3, dated
September 10, 2009, to do the replacements.

Repetitive \3/8\-Inch Rod-End Replacements

    (h) Repetitively replace the \3/8\-inch translating cowl
adjustable-length actuator rod-ends that were installed as specified
in paragraph (g) of this AD, before they accumulate 11,000 flight
cycles, with a zero time \3/8\-inch adjustable-length rod-end, P/N
M81935/1-6 or other approved part number. Since the rod-ends are not
serialized, track their life by using the associated actuator
assembly's life. Use paragraphs 3.E., excluding both paragraph
3.E.(8) and the recording requirement in paragraph 3.E.(5), of MRAS
ASB No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 3, dated September 10, 2009,
to do the replacements.

Optional Terminating Action

    (i) As an optional terminating action to the repetitive \3/8\-
inch rod-end replacements required by this AD, replace the \3/8\-
inch adjustable rod-ends with a \7/16\-inch adjustable rod-end and
nut or you may replace the adjustable end actuator with a fixed end
actuator. Use paragraph 3.E.(1) of MRAS ASB No. CF6-80C2 S/B
78A1162, Revision 3, dated September 10, 2009, to do the
replacements.

Installation Prohibition

    (j) After the effective date of this AD, do not install rod-ends
P/Ns KBE6-59, MS2124S06, B15946-13 or 15946000-13, on any engine
subject to this AD. Rod-ends removed to comply with this AD are not
eligible for installation on any aircraft.

Previous Credit

    (k) Inspections and replacements and optional terminating action
performed before the effective date of this AD using MRAS ASB No.
CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, dated December 30, 2008; Revision 1, dated
February 13, 2009; or Revision 2, dated June 22, 2009, satisfy the
required initial actions and optional terminating action of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (l) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (m) Contact Christopher J. Richards, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781)
238-7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Middle River Aircraft Systems Alert Service
Bulletin No. CF6-80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 3, dated September 10,
2009, to perform the actions required by this AD. The Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this
service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Contact Middle River Aircraft Systems, 103 Chesapeake Park
Plaza, MF 46, Baltimore, MD 21220; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(410) 682-0100; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for a copy of
this service information. You may review copies at the FAA, New
England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 2, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24391 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: IAQ Practices in Schools Survey 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) ICR# 1885.01 9. Keywords : Indoor Air Quality, IAQ, Schools 10. Abstract Title IV of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( SARA) gives the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) broad authority to research indoor air quality ( IAQ) issues, develop and disseminate information on indoor air quality, and coordinate efforts at the Federal, state, and local levels. As part of this ongoing effort, the Indoor Environments Division ( IED) of EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air developed low cost guidance for schools, entitled IAQ Tools for Schools, to assist school staff in preventing, identifying, and solving problems. EPA has distributed approximately 40,000 kits to date, over half of them to individual schools. Using a four page survey, EPA proposes to collect data from individual schools throughout the United States. This survey will be used to gain information regarding the number of schools that have implemented sound IAQ management practices, such as those activities recommended in IAQ Tools for Schools. These data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of EPA's outreach efforts against the Agency's established Government Performance Results Act of 1993 ( GPRA) goal. EPA is working towards achieving the implementation of sound IAQ practices in 15 percent or ( 16,650) of the nation's public and private schools by 2005. To determine its success in achieving this goal, EPA intends to survey elementary and secondary schools selected randomly from a potential pool of all public and private schools operating in the United States. A survey and instructions for completing it will be sent to each randomly selected school. Schools will be given up to 30 days to respond. In addition to providing data on EPA's attainment of its GPRA goal for the implementation of sound IAQ management practices in schools, EPA will use the data collected to evaluate the effectiveness of IAQ Tools for Schools and other outreach efforts. If necessary, EPA will resurvey schools in 2005 to determine whether the Agency has met its GRPA goal. It is important to note that the survey is designed to measure the use of sound IAQ management practices in schools, rather than the indoor air quality of the schools themselves.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 1,612 b. Total annual responses 806 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 564 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 564 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 564 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change New Collection $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X_ Program planning or management b. P_ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. X Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? X Yes Q No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: John Guevin Phone: 202 564 9055 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Mary T. Smith, Director Indoor Environments Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air ( ORIA) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95