March 30, 2004 ( Via E Mail easter. patrick@ epa. gov) Alexander Cristofaro Small Business Advocacy Chair C/ O Patrick Easter USEPA 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW MC 1806A Washington, DC 20460 Re: Port Townsend Paper Corporation Small Entity Representative Comments on EPA's Proposed Rulemaking for Phase III of the 316( b) Cooling Water Intake Structures Rule Dear Mr. Cristofaro,

Port Townsend Paper is pleased to submit these comments as part of SBREFA Panel for the Phase III of the Cooling Water Intake Structure ( CWIS) rulemaking under Section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act. I have consulted with Meg McCarthy of the American Forest & Paper Association in the preparation of these comments, as she attended the outreach meeting EPA held earlier this month. While I am writing these comments from the perspective of a small business, the alternatives proposed within these comments could be applied more generally to all Phase III facilities since, on the whole, these facilities' cooling water intake structures have not been identified as causing adverse environmental impacts.

Port Townsend Paper has previously submitted comments to EPA as a part of the SBREFA panel for the Phase III rule ( attached). The opinions expressed in our previous comments still apply, but Port Townsend Paper would like to emphasize some of the points we made in the past, and to highlight some concerns that have recently been brought to our attention.

As we stated previously, Port Townsend Paper is a small business faced with an extremely challenging economic climate, resulting in limited sales, job losses and closed plants. We are very concerned about the potential costs ( whether capital or administrative) that may be imposed by the Phase III rulemaking and the impact they will have on our company.

Port Townsend Paper holds the opinion that EPA should not apply comprehensive national regulations to all Phase III facilities because of the low risk that they pose. Alternatively, Port Townsend Paper endorses the idea of establishing a de minimus applicability threshold of 50 million gallons per day ( mgd) of cooling water. Using this approach, facilities withdrawing less than 50 mgd of cooling water would be outside the scope of the rulemaking absent some unusual site specific factor. Not applying comprehensive national requirements to all Phase III facilities is consistent with the fact that, according to data collected in EPA's screener survey, Phase III manufacturing facilities such as Port Townsend Paper only comprise about 2% of the total national cooling water flow. Further, we are unaware of data showing, as a general matter, that these facilities' CWISs have had an adverse impact on the environment. Since manufacturing facilities constitute such a small percentage of the total cooling water usage and their CWISs have not been demonstrated to result in adverse environmental impact, Port Townsend Paper believes that it is appropriate to exclude from national regulation a substantial majority of those facilities. A 50 mgd cooling water de minimus applicability threshold, which has been used by EPA in the past to distinguish between Phases II and III, would accomplish that goal.

For those facilities that would be considered within the scope of the rule, Port Townsend Paper supports the following regulatory alternatives that would reduce the financial burden on small businesses. Facilities should be able to choose how to meet the requirements of the rule in the manner that best suits their individual circumstances. For example, if a facility were to maintain a maximum through screen intake velocity of 0.5 ft./ sec. or implement a technology chosen from a suite of technologies pre approved by EPA, then EPA should consider the facility to be in compliance. If the facility has chosen one of these options, it should not be required to demonstrate that the facility is meeting performance standards requirements as in Phase II. Furthermore, under these options, permitting studies and monitoring requirements should be waived, as they pose a significant financial burden on small businesses such as Port Townsend Paper.

Additionally, Port Townsend Paper is concerned with the performance standard requirements from the Phase II rule, which group tidal rivers, estuaries and oceans together, requiring reductions of both impingement and entrainment for facilities on those waterbody types. While Port Townsend Paper does withdraw salt water from the ocean, the water withdrawn is not like the biologically rich waters at the mouth of a river or estuary. Port Townsend Paper's cooling water intake structure is located under the docks at the shoreline of Port Townsend Bay. The area is subject to tidal movement but in this case, the shoreline is an artificial breakwater. The intake structure should not be held to the stricter standard of reducing both impingement and entrainment just because it is withdrawing ocean water.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the SBREFA process and to comment on the development of regulations to establish requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Section 316( b) Phase III Facilities. Please feel free to contact me at ( 360) 379 2112 if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

// via e mail 3/ 30/ 04//

Eveleen Muehlethaler Vice President, Asst. Mill Manager Port Townsend Paper Corporation 100 Paper Mill Hill Road ~ Port Townsend, WA 98368 ~ ( 360) 385 3170


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64901-64902]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20368]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2816-000]

Rocket Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Rocket Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 4, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling

link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: September 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20368 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


_____________________

Ex Parte Meeting Summary:  Ozone NAAQS

Date:  December 20, 2007, 9:00 – 10:00 am

Attendees:

Visitors:

Dr. Anne E. Smith

Vice President

CRA International

1201 F Street, N.W., Suite 700

Washington, DC  20004-1204

202-662-3800

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Dr. Roger McClellan

Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis

13701 Quaking Aspen Pl NE

Albuquerque, NM 87111

Dr. Richard Smith

Mark L Reed III Distinguished Professor of Statistics

Department of Statistics and Operations Research

University of North Carolina,

Chapel Hill NC 27599-3260

Dr. Mark Utell

Professor of Medicine and Environmental Medicine

University of Rochester Medical Center

601 Elmwood Avenue,

Rochester, NY 14642

EPA attendees:

George Gray, ORD

Pamela Williams, ORD

Bob Fegley, ORD

John Vandenberg, ORD

Bill Briggs, Office of Public Outreach, EPA

Ila Cote, ORD

Lydia Wegman, OAR

Harvey Richmond, OAR

Dave McKee, OAR

Mary Ross, ORD

Debra Walsh, ORD

Jim Brown, ORD

Tom Bateson, ORD

John Langstaff, OAR

Summary of discussion:

Dr. McClellan introduced the visitors as contributors to a workshop
report submitted to the Ozone Docket (“the Rochester Report) and that
individual comments also had been submitted to the Docket by Dr.
McClellan including input from Dr. Richard Smith, and also individual
comments had been submitted to the Docket by Dr. Anne Smith.

Dr. Utell summarized background on the Rochester workshop and related
Report and noted that the goal was to review and evaluate ozone evidence
germane to setting ozone policy.  He stated their concentration was on
areas of uncertainty, that they did not focus on developing
recommendations regarding the NAAQS, and that Dr. McClellan had taken
the lead on writing up the workshop report.  There was no EPA nor API
(the organization that funded the workshop) input on the Rochester
Report.

Dr. McClellan stated that there was controversy regarding national
background levels of ozone (i.e., policy relevant background, PRB)
related to the ‘bluntness’ of the geochemical model used by EPA to
estimate PRB, and that air quality related to ozone had been improving.
Dr. Gray asked the visitors if they were aware of better alternatives to
the current model and Dr. McClellan indicated there was “no right
way” but that alternative approaches (not specified) added comfort to
the interpretation of model results.  Dr. Anne Smith noted that the
comparison of model outputs and monitoring data indicated variability in
time and space (e.g., the monitors at Trinity Head were double the
modeled PRB).  Dr. McClellan stated there was no simple algorithm with
respect to estimation of policy relevant background.

Dr. Utell then described the human clinical evidence reviewed at the
Rochester workshop.  He stated that whereas there was substantial new
evidence at the time of the [1997] ozone NAAQS review, there was but one
“interesting and important” new study for the current review, the
Adams study.  Further, he stated there was a debate over the
interpretation of the findings from the Adams study and, as there is
uncertainty related to there just being this one study, the clinical
evidence was inconclusive. Dr Richard Smith then summarized the use of
the Scheffe correction for multiple comparisons and stated the Adams
study did not provide definitive conclusions and needed replication.

Dr. Gray asked the visitors to comment on how human exposure chamber
ozone concentrations related to ambient ozone exposures.  Dr. Utell
stated that chamber exposures “pretty nicely” represent ambient
ozone exposures.

Dr. McClellan then noted comments on the other line of evidence, related
to epidemiological evidence, had been submitted in his docket comments
and was summarized also in the Rochester Report.  Dr. Richard Smith then
summarized the Rochester approach to literature review and that he had
some additional unpublished data analysis, including analysis of NMAPPS
data that had not been fully elaborated in the Dominici paper (JAMA,
2004).  Dr. Richard Smith stated that his unpublished analyses were
based on 24-hour ozone metric, and there was substantial intercity
variability in effects due to copollutants, for example particulate
matter.  Dr. Richard Smith did not provide to the participants any
copies of his unpublished analyses.

Dr. Anne Smith then discussed her docket comments on the evaluation of
time series data.  She stated that there is a risk distribution across
days e.g., most of the risk is from days with less than 60 ppb ozone.
Her analyses of days with ozone above 70 ppb, and of days above the
current standard, indicate small relative risks at current exposure
levels.  Further, she stated that in the ozone NAAQS proposal that EPA
had collapsed risk estimates down to simple aggregate estimates of risk,
and that in her opinion this was inappropriate.  She stated that
city-specific risk estimates show risks above 70 ppb were small with a
broad range of uncertainty.

Dr. Anne Smith then commented on policy relevant background (PRB). She
stated that much of the risk that was estimated was due to exposures
near PRB and therefore the risks estimates near PRB were speculative.
For example, she stated that risks can decrease by 50% or more with
small PRB changes, and she stated that this “squishiness” needed to
be communicated (she pointed to Figure 2 in the Rochester Report as
relevant to this point).

Dr. McClellan then made some concluding statements, that the Rochester
workshop participants had not stated a preference with respect to the
NAAQS, that the limitations in evidence made for a tough decision, and
that science doesn’t drive the policy but judgment was needed.
Further, Dr. McClellan felt that CASAC combined both science and policy
in their development of NAAQS recommendations and in his opinion the
level of discourse was not as high as had been the case in prior
reviews.  Lydia Wegman noted to Dr. McClellan that CASAC had many
lengthy discussions of the ozone evidence over a several year period
that such discussions had served as the basis for their recommendations
to the Administrator.

Dr. Gray thanked the visitors for their time, noted that the
Administrator had not decided about the NAAQS, and that their comments
had been heard and the comments played and important role in the
decision process.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28765-28766]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL11-40-000; QF03-140-001]

Roquette America, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 9, 2011, pursuant to section 292.205(c) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations
implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as
amended (PURPA), 18 CFR 292.205(c) (2010), Roquette America, Inc.
(Roquette) filed a request for waiver of the operating and efficiency
standards for a topping-cycle cogeneration facility located in Keokuk,
Iowa (Facility). Roquette states that the waiver being requested is for
calendar years 2010 and 2011 due to an unexpected equipment outage at
the facility.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2011.

    Dated: May 11, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12119 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35361-35363]
[DOCID:fr23jn08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0685; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-037-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model
DA 42 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    The original designed bellcrank for the aileron control system
in the wing needed to be installed with slightly bent rod ends
during production of the aircraft to avoid friction and possible
chafing. In addition to being a nonpreferable production practice,
this creates the risk of replacement parts being installed during
subsequent in-service maintenance without being bent or not being
bent correctly. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could
lead to chafing damage of the aileron control system and consequent
loss of control of the aircraft.

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

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 23, 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.

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: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; 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-2008-0685;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-037-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2008-0086, dated May 13, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    The original designed bellcrank for the aileron control system
in the wing needed to be installed with slightly bent rod ends
during production of the aircraft to avoid friction and possible
chafing. In addition to being a nonpreferable production practice,
this creates the risk of replacement parts being installed during
subsequent in-service maintenance without being bent or not being
bent correctly. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could
lead to chafing damage of the aileron control system and consequent
loss of control of the aircraft. Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
has now developed a new aileron bellcrank that allows for additional
angular movement of the push rod, thereby eliminating the chafing
risk without using bent rod ends.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the replacement of the aileron bellcrank
with an improved part and the replacement of any bent rod ends P/N
DAI-9027-00-01. In addition, this AD prohibits the reinstallation of
P/N DA4-2717-50-00 aileron bellcranks and bent rod ends P/N DAI-
9027-00-01 as replacement in the future.

Relevant Service Information

    Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. MSB-42-043/1, dated April 3, 2008; Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB-42-043, dated February 4, 2008;
and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Drawing Number D60-2717-00-00,
dated January 24, 2008. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 156 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour (no labor cost; 3 work-hours
warranty given by manufacturer). Required parts would cost $0 (warranty
credit given by manufacturer) per product. Where the service
information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty,
we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do
not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may
incur costs higher than estimated here.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $0, or $0 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2008-0685;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-037-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 23, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model DA 42 airplanes, all serial
numbers, with aileron bellcranks part number (P/N) DA4-2717-50-00
installed, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

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

    The original designed bellcrank for the aileron control system
in the wing needed to be installed with slightly bent rod ends
during production of the aircraft to avoid friction and possible
chafing. In addition to being a nonpreferable production practice,
this creates the risk of replacement parts being installed during
subsequent in-service maintenance without being bent or not being
bent correctly. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could
lead to chafing damage of the aileron control system and consequent
loss of control of the aircraft. Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
has now developed a new aileron bellcrank that allows for additional
angular movement of the push rod, thereby eliminating the chafing
risk without using bent rod ends.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA Airworthiness
Directive (AD) requires the replacement of the aileron bellcrank
with an improved part and the replacement of any bent rod ends P/N
DAI-9027-00-01. In addition, this AD prohibits the reinstallation of
P/N DA4-2717-50-00 aileron bellcranks and bent rod ends P/N DAI-
9027-00-01 as replacement in the future.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, replace the aileron bellcrank, P/N DA4-
2717-50-00, with the improved design aileron bellcrank, P/N DA4-
2717-50-00--01, and replace any bent rod ends, P/N DAI-9027-00-01,
with straight rod ends, P/N DAI-9027-00-01, following Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. MSB-42-043/1, dated April 3, 2008; Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB-42-043, dated
February 4, 2008; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Drawing
Number D60-2717-00-00, dated January 24, 2008.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any
aileron bellcrank, P/N DA4-2717-50-00, or bent rod ends, P/N DAI-
9027-00-01.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2008-0086, dated May 13, 2008; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB-42-043/1, dated April 3, 2008;
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB-42-043,
dated February 4, 2008; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Drawing
Number D60-2717-00-00, dated January 24, 2008, for related
information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 17, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-14078 Filed 6-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P