[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13944-13948]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0138; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-020-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 95-24-04,
that applies to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-
600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes). AD 95-24-04 requires repetitive inspections to detect
cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, and repair if necessary. Since
we issued AD 95-24-04, we have determined that the inspection threshold
and interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks and
accomplishment of applicable repairs, because of cracking in the rear
spar web of the wings between certain ribs due to fatigue-related high
shear stress. This proposed AD would reduce the inspection compliance
time and interval, and would expand the applicability to airplanes on
which a certain Airbus modification has been embodied in production and
to airplanes on which a certain Airbus service bulletin has been
embodied in service. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue-related cracking, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the wing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2014.

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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

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 proposed AD, the MCAI, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; 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-2014-0138;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-020-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 based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each

substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On November 9, 1995, we issued AD 95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60
FR 58213, November 27, 1995). AD 95-24-04 required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes;
Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model
A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600
series airplanes).
    Since we issued AD 95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213,
November 27, 1995), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which
is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community,
has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0013R1, dated February 20,
2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Wing fatigue tests carried out by Airbus revealed cracks on the
vertical web of the rear spar between Ribs 1 and 2. Similar cracks
in the same area were reportedly found by A300 aeroplane operators.
In all cases, the cracks ran from the tip of the build slot to the
nearest adjacent bolt hole.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction
G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued * * * [an
AD] to require an eddy current inspection of the aft face of the
wing rear spar in the area adjacent to the build slot on Left Hand
(LH) and Right Hand (RH) wings.
    Since that [French] AD was issued, a fleet survey and updated
fatigue and damage tolerance analysis were performed in order to
substantiate the second A300-600 Extended Service Goal (ESG2)
exercise. The results of the survey and analysis showed that the
inspection threshold and interval must be reduced to allow timely
detection of cracks and accomplishment of an applicable corrective
action.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Airbus Service
Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6059 Revision 04.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 1997-375-239(B)R3, which is
superseded, but redefines the thresholds and intervals. This [EASA]
AD also expands the applicability to aeroplanes on which Airbus
modification (mod) 12102 has been embodied in production and to
aeroplanes on which Airbus SB A300-57-6063 (Airbus mod 11130) has
been embodied in service.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0138.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision
04, dated February 22, 2011. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.
    For pre-Airbus Modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6063) airplanes, the compliance times are dependent on airplane
configuration and utilization. The initial inspection thresholds
described in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision
04, dated February 22, 2011, range between 18,000 and 23,300 total
flight cycles, and between 29,100 and 46,600 total flight hours. The
``grace period'' specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-
57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, is either 1,000 flight
cycles, or 1,600 flight hours, or 2,100 flight hours. The repetitive
inspection interval ranges between 4,800 and 6,100 flight cycles, and
between 7,700 and 12,300 flight hours.
    For post-Airbus Modification 11130 (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
57-6063) airplanes or post-Airbus production Modification 12102
airplanes, the compliance times are dependent on airplane configuration
and utilization. The initial inspection thresholds described in Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February
22, 2011, range between 29,900 and 38,700 total flight cycles, and
between 48,400 and 77,500 total flight hours. The ``grace period''
specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision
04, dated February 22, 2011, is either 800 or 1,000 flight cycles, or
1,200 or 1,700 flight hours. The repetitive inspection interval ranges
between 5,100 and 6,500 flight cycles, or between 8,200 and 13,100
flight hours.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Repair Approvals

    In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies
to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain
discrepancies are found, we typically include in the AD a requirement
to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or
the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
    We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries
do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do
recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become
aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were
previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval
Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs.
Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions
come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair
approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the
unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that
were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the
potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the
unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the
applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe
condition not being fully corrected.
    To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed
to correct the unsafe condition, certain requirements of this proposed
AD specify that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD.
This change is intended to clarify the method of compliance and to
provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are
specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In
addition, we use the phrase ``its delegated agent, or the DAH with
State of Design Authority design organization approval, as applicable''
in this proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to approve certain
required repairs for this proposed AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    Although the MCAI or service information allows further flight
after cracks are found during compliance with the required action,
paragraphs (k) and (n) of this proposed AD would require that you
repair any cracking before further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 71 products of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection [actions retained from  3 work-hour x $85              $0  $255 per inspection   $18,105 per
 AD 95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436     per hour = $255 per                cycle.                inspection cycle.
 (60 FR 58213, November 27,         inspection cycle.
 1995)].
Inspection [new proposed action].  3 work-hour x $85               0  $255 per inspection   $18,105 per
                                    per hour = $255 per                cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0138; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
020-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 28, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213,
November 27, 1995).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-
103, and B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes
    (3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection
compliance time and interval must be reduced to allow timely
detection of cracks and accomplishment of applicable repairs if
necessary because of cracking in the rear spar web of the wings
between certain ribs due to fatigue-related high shear stress. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue-related cracking,
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B2 Series Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with
no changes. For Model A300 B2 series airplanes: Prior to the
accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight
cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-24-04),
whichever occurs later, perform a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection to detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August
12, 1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(h) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4-103, and B4-2C Series
Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with
no changes. For Model A300 B4-103, and B4-2C series airplanes: Prior
to the accumulation of 19,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400
flight cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-
24-04), whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect
cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
cycles.

(i) Retained Inspection of Model A300 B4-200 Series Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with
no changes. For Model A300 B4-200 series airplanes: Prior to the
accumulation of 17,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,400 flight
cycles after December 27, 1995 (the effective date of AD 95-24-04),
whichever occurs later, perform an HFEC inspection to detect cracks
at the aft spar web of the wings,

in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated
August 12, 1994. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(j) Retained Inspection of Model A300-600 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-
622, B4-605R, B4-622R, and F4-605R Series Airplanes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (d) of AD
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with
no changes. For Model A300-600 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
605R, B4-622R, and F4-605R series airplanes: Prior to the
accumulation of 21,600 flight cycles, perform an HFEC inspection to
detect cracks at the aft spar web of the wings, in accordance with
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, dated August 12, 1994. Repeat
the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,700 flight
cycles. Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by
paragraph (l) of this AD terminates the requirements of this
paragraph.

(k) Retained Repairs

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (e) of AD
95-24-04, Amendment 39-9436 (60 FR 58213, November 27, 1995), with
new actions.
    (1) Before the effective date of this AD, if any crack is
detected during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) though (j)
of this AD: Prior to further flight, repair the crack, in accordance
with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 12, 1994; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, dated August 12, 1994; as
applicable; or in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, if any crack is
detected during any inspection required by paragraphs (g) though (j)
of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack, in accordance
with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated August 12, 1994
(for Model A300 B2 series airplanes, and Model A300 B4-103 and B4-2C
series airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-
6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011 (for Model A300-600 B4-
601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, and F4-605R series
airplanes); except if Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0213, dated
August 12, 1994; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059,
Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011; specifies to contact Airbus
for an approved repair, before further flight, repair the crack
using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent, or the Design
Approval Holder with the EASA design organization approval, as
applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

(l) New Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(5) of
this AD: At the later of the compliance times specified in paragraph
(l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, perform an HFEC inspection to detect
cracks of the aft face of the wing rear spar web in the area
adjacent to the build slot, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059,
Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at the applicable compliance time specified in Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February
22, 2011, except as specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
Accomplishment of the initial inspection required by this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (1) At the earlier of the applicable compliance times specified
in the ``Threshold Inspection'' column in table 1 through table 4 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February
22, 2011, specifies ``(FH)'' and ``(FC)'' in the ``Threshold
Inspection'' columns, this AD specifies ``total flight hours'' and
``total flight cycles.''
    (2) At the earlier of the applicable compliance times specified
in the ``Grace Period'' column in table 1 through table 4 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February
22, 2011, specifies ``(FH)'' and ``(FC)'' in the ``Grace Period''
columns, this AD specifies ``flight hours'' and ``flight cycles.''
Where Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04,
dated February 22, 2011, specifies a grace period, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.

(m) Compliance Time Exceptions

    The repetitive inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD
is to be accomplished at the earlier of the applicable compliance
time specified in column ``Repeat Interval'' of table 1 through
table 4 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision
04, dated February 22, 2011. Where Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies
``(FC)'' and ``(FH)'' in the ``Repeat Interval'' columns, this AD
specifies ``flight hours'' and ``flight cycles.''

(n) New Repair

    If any crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (l) of this AD: Before further flight, repair the crack,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 04, dated February
22, 2011. Where Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6059,
Revision 04, dated February 22, 2011, specifies to contact Airbus
for an approved repair: Before further flight, repair the crack
using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent, or the Design
Approval Holder with the EASA design organization approval, as
applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval
must specifically refer to this AD. Repair of any cracking as
required by this paragraph does not terminate the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD.

(o) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-6059, dated August 12, 1994.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (j), (k), (l), and (n) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6059, Revision 03, dated October 25, 1999, which is
not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it
to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). You
are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is
returned to service.

(q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Airworthiness Directive 2013-0013R1, dated February 20, 2013,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0138.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 28, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-05436 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


section, as applicable, for the shipment forwarding the material from
the designated facility to the alternate facility instead of for the
shipment from the generator to the designated facility. For purposes of
paragraph (a) of this section for a shipment forwarding such waste to
an alternate facility by a designated facility:
    (1) The copy of the manifest received by the generator must have
the handwritten signature of the owner or operator of the alternate
facility in place of the signature of the owner or operator of the
designated facility, and
    (2) The 35- and 45-day timeframes begin the date the waste was
accepted by the initial transporter forwarding the PCB waste shipment
from the designated facility to the alternate facility.

0
16. Section 761.219 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  761.219  One-year exception reporting.

    (a) A disposer of PCB waste shall submit a One-year Exception
Report to the EPA Regional Administrator for the Region in which the
disposal facility is located no later than 45 days from the end of the
1-year storage for disposal date when the following occurs:
    (1) The disposal facility receives PCBs or PCB Items on a date more
than 9 months from the date the PCBs or PCB Items were removed from
service for disposal, as indicated on the manifest or continuation
sheet; and
    (2) Because of contractual commitments or other factors affecting
the facility's disposal capacity, the disposer of PCB waste could not
dispose of the affected PCBs or PCB Items within 1 year of the date of
removal from service for disposal.
    (b) A generator or commercial storer of PCB waste who manifests
PCBs or PCB Items to a disposer of PCB waste shall submit a One-year
Exception Report to the EPA Regional Administrator for the Region in
which the generator or commercial storer is located no later than 45
days from the date the following occurs:
    (1) The generator or commercial storer transferred the PCBs or PCB
Items to the disposer of PCB waste on a date within 9 months from the
date of removal from service for disposal of the affected PCBs or PCB
Items, as indicated on the manifest or continuation sheet; and
    (2) The generator or commercial storer either has not received
within 13 months from the date of removal from service for disposal a
Certificate of Disposal confirming the disposal of the affected PCBs or
PCB Items, or the generator or commercial storer receives a Certificate
of Disposal confirming disposal of the affected PCBs or PCB Items on a
date more than 1 year after the date of removal from service.
    (c) The One-year Exception Report shall include:
    (1) A legible copy of any manifest or other written communication
relevant to the transfer and disposal of the affected PCBs or PCB
Items.
    (2) A cover letter signed by the submitter or an authorized
representative explaining:
    (i) The date(s) when the PCBs or PCB Items were removed from
service for disposal.
    (ii) The date(s) when the PCBs or PCB Items were received by the
submitter of the report, if applicable.
    (iii) The date(s) when the affected PCBs or PCB Items were
transferred to a designated disposal facility.
    (iv) The identity of the transporters, commercial storers, or
disposers known to be involved with the transaction.
    (v) The reason, if known, for the delay in bringing about the
disposal of the affected PCBs or PCB Items within 1 year from the date
of removal from service for disposal.
    (d) PCB/radioactive waste that is exempt from the 1-year storage
for disposal time limit pursuant to Sec.  761.65(a)(1) is also exempt
from the exception reporting requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) of this section.
[FR Doc. 2012-21674 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 63040-63041]
[DOCID:fr22oc08-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; Periodic Inspection of
Commercial Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice on State periodic inspection programs.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its acceptance of the State of
Massachusetts' periodic inspection (PI) program for commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs). The Agency has reviewed the State's inspection program
for CMVs and determined that it should be added to the list of programs
which have been determined to be comparable to, or as effective as, the
Federal PI requirements contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). The State requires CMVs to be inspected annually
or within 7 days of registration for newly acquired vehicles. The
agency has published a list of such programs in the Federal Register
previously, and this list has been revised occasionally. Including
Massachusetts, 22 States, the Alabama Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board,
the District of Columbia, 10 Canadian Provinces, and one Canadian
Territory have PI programs which have been determined to be comparable
to, or as effective as, the Federal PI requirements.

DATES: This action is effective on October 22, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Huntley, Chief of the
Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C.
31142) (the Act) requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe
standards for annual or more frequent inspection of CMVs unless the
Secretary finds another inspection system is as effective as an annual
or more frequent inspection. On December 7, 1988, in response to the
Act, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the agency within the
Department of Transportation responsible for motor carrier safety until
1999, published a final rule amending part 396 of the FMCSRs (53 FR
49402). The final rule requires CMVs operated in interstate commerce to
be inspected at least once a year. The inspection is to be based on
Federal inspection standards, or a State inspection program determined
by the FHWA to be comparable to, or as effective as, the Federal
standards. Accordingly, if the agency determines a State's PI program
is comparable to, or as effective as, the requirements of part 396,
then a motor carrier must ensure all of its CMVs which are required by
that State to be inspected through the State's inspection program are
so inspected. If a State does not have such a program, the motor
carrier is responsible for ensuring its CMVs are inspected using one of
the alternatives included in the final rule.
    On March 16, 1989, the FHWA published a notice in the Federal
Register that requested States and other interested parties to identify
and provide information on the CMV inspection programs in their
respective jurisdictions (54 FR 11020). Upon review of the information
submitted, the FHWA published a list of State inspection programs that
were determined to be comparable to the Federal PI requirements (54 FR
50726, December 8, 1989). This initial list included 15 States and the
District of Columbia. The list was revised on September 23, 1991, to
include the inspection programs of the Alabama Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(LPG) Board, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, all of the
Canadian Provinces, and the Yukon Territory (56 FR 47982). On November
27, 1992, the list was revised to include the Wisconsin bus inspection
program (57 FR 56400). On April 14, 1994, the list was revised to
include the Texas CMV inspection program (59 FR 17829). The list was
revised on November 7, 1995, to include the Connecticut bus inspection
program (60 FR 56183). The most recent revision was made on February
19, 1998 to include the Ohio inspection program for church buses (63 FR
8516), and a notice announcing FMCSA's acceptance of certain
enhancements to the program on June 18, 2001 (66 FR 32863).

Determination: State of Massachusetts Inspection Program

    The State of Massachusetts (the State) has implemented a mandatory
annual inspection requirement for all buses (vehicles designed to
transport 16 or more passengers, including the driver) and trucks as
part of its program to improve the safety of operation of CMVs. As of
October 1, 2008, the State prohibits any person from operating CMVs
that are designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the
driver, or that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms
(10,001 pounds) or more, unless the vehicle displays a valid safety
inspection decal (540 Code of Massachusetts Regulations [CMR] 4.00 and
310 CMR 60.02).
    The FMCSA has determined that the Massachusetts inspection program
in effect as of October 1, 2008, is comparable to, or as effective as,
the Federal PI requirements. Therefore, motor carriers operating CMVs
which are subject to the State's program and which are subject to the
FMCSRs must use the State's program to satisfy the Federal PI
requirements.
    It should be noted that in accepting the State's PI program, FMCSA
also accepts the recordkeeping requirements associated with the
inspection program. Upon successful completion of the Massachusetts
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection a comprehensive Vehicle
Inspection Report (VIR) is created which identifies the vehicle,
inspector, and the status of the inspection. In addition to the VIR, a
program inspection sticker indicating the vehicle has passed or failed
the inspection will be affixed to the vehicle's windshield. For
trailers, the required proof of inspection will be the VIR.
    Massachusetts will also have a database of all vehicle inspections
performed. The vehicle inspection information will be captured at the
end of the inspection and stored for a period of five years. State
officials can query the database to capture a specific inspection
report, or to summarize and analyze a subset or all CMV safety
inspection records.

States With Equivalent Periodic Inspection Programs

    The following is a complete list of States with inspection programs
that FMCSA has determined are comparable to, or as effective as, the
Federal PI requirements.

Alabama (LPG Board),
California,
Connecticut,
District of Columbia,

Hawaii,
Illinois,
Louisiana,
Maine,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
New Hampshire,
New Jersey,
New York,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island,
Texas,
Utah,
Vermont,
Virginia,
West Virginia,
Wisconsin.

    Please note that two States have been removed from the previous
list of approved programs. Arkansas no longer has a periodic inspection
program for buses comparable to, or as effective, as the Federal PI
program. Oklahoma has repealed its inspection requirements. Both States
have therefore been de-listed. As required by 49 CFR 396.23(b)(2), each
motor carrier in Arkansas and Oklahoma must ensure that the periodic
inspection required by 49 CFR 396.17 is performed on all CMVs under its
control.
    In addition to the States listed above, the FMCSA accepts the
inspection programs of the 10 Canadian Provinces (Alberta, British
Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Saskatchewan) and the Yukon Territory
are comparable to, or as effective as, the Federal PI requirements. All
other States either have no PI programs for CMVs or their PI programs
have not been determined by the FMCSA to be comparable to, or as
effective as, the Federal PI requirements. Should any of these States
wish to establish a program or modify their programs in order to make
them comparable to the Federal requirements, the State should contact
the appropriate FMCSA division office.

List of Subjects

    Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle
maintenance, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31132, 31136, 31142, 31502, and 31504; 49
CFR 1.73.

    Issued on: October 14, 2008.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-25174 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51253-51254]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20902]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9932-96-Region 10]

Proposed Issuance of the NPDES General Permit for Offshore
Seafood Processors in Federal Waters off the Washington and Oregon
Coast (Permit Number WAG520000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed issuance of NPDES general permit and request
for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10,
is proposing to issue a general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Offshore Seafood Processors
discharging in Federal Waters off the coasts of Washington and Oregon,
pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et
seq. As proposed, the draft general permit authorizes the discharge of
treated seafood processing wastes from facilities to Federal Waters of
the contiguous zone and ocean.

DATES: The public comment period for the draft general permit will be
from the date of publication of this Notice until October 8, 2015.
Comments must be received or postmarked by no later than midnight
Pacific Daylight Time on October 8, 2015. Persons wishing to request a
public hearing should submit their written request by October 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed general permit should be sent to
Lindsay Guzzo, Office of Water and Watersheds; USEPA Region 10; 1200
6th Ave., Suite 900, OWW-191; Seattle, Washington 98101. Comments may
also be received via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A copy
of the permit and other support documents can be found on the Region 10
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/waterpermits.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lindsay Guzzo at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Requests may also be made to Audrey Washington at
(206) 553-0523 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comment

    The draft general permit contains technology-based effluent
limitations, administrative and monitoring requirements, as well as
other standard conditions, prohibitions, and management practices. A
fact sheet has been prepared which sets forth the principle factual,
legal, policy, and scientific information considered in the development
of the draft general permit. Copies of the draft general permit, fact
sheet, Biological Evaluation, Essential Fish Habitat Assessment, and
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation are available online at http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/waterpermits.htm (click on draft permits, then
Oregon and Washington), at the EPA Region 10 headquarters at the
address listed above any time between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, or mailed upon request. Interested persons may submit
written comments to the attention of Lindsay Guzzo at the address
above. All comments must include the name, address, and telephone
number of the commenter, a concise statement of comment and the
relevant facts upon which it is based. Comments of either support or
concern which are directed at specific, cited permit requirements are
appreciated.
    After the expiration date of the Public Notice on October 8, 2015,
the Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10, will make
a final determination with respect to issuance of the general permit.
The proposed requirements contained in the draft general permit will
become final upon issuance if no significant comments are received
during the public comment period.

Public Hearing

    Persons wishing to request a public hearing should submit their
written request by October 8, 2015 stating the nature of the issues to
be raised as well as the requester's name, address and telephone number
to Lindsay Guzzo at the address above. If a public hearing is
scheduled, notice will be published in the Federal Register. Notice
will also be posted on the Region 10 Web site, and will be mailed to
all interested persons receiving letters of the availability of the
draft permit.

Endangered Species Act

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544,
requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries
Service

(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their actions
have the potential to either beneficially or adversely affect any
threatened or endangered species. To address these ESA requirements,
and in support of the EPA's informal consultation with the Services, a
Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared to analyze these potential
effects. The results of the BE concluded that discharges from Offshore
Seafood Processing facilities will either have no effect or are not
likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species in the
vicinity of the discharges. The fact sheet, the draft permits and the
BE are being sent to the Services for review of consistency with those
programs established for the conservation of endangered and threatened
species. Any additional comments or conservation recommendations
received from the Services regarding threatened or endangered species
will be considered prior to issuance of the general permit.
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Section
305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act [16 U.S.C. 1855(b)] requires federal
agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries when any activity proposed to
be permitted, funded, or undertaken by a federal agency may have an
adverse effect on designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) as defined by
the Act. To address the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
EPA prepared an EFH Assessment concluding that offshore seafood
processors operations may adversely affect essential fish habitat.
However, the EPA expects that effects on essential fish habitat, while
possible, are likely to be limited in extent for several reasons. For
more information please see the Biological Evaluation/EFH assessment.
Any additional comments or conservation recommendations received from
NOAA Fisheries regarding EFH will be considered prior to issuance of
the general permit.

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempts this action from
the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to Section 6
of that order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated
facilities in the draft general permit and finds them consistent with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., a
federal agency must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
``for any proposed rule'' for which the agency ``is required by section
553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law, to
publish general notice of proposed rulemaking.'' The RFA exempts from
this requirement any rule that the issuing agency certifies ``will not,
if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.'' The EPA has concluded that NPDES general
permits are permits, not rulemakings, under the APA and thus not
subject to APA rulemaking requirements or the FRA.

    Dated: August 14, 2015.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-20902 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64373-64374]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2533-058]

City of Brainerd and its Public Utilities Commission; Notice of
Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Amendment of License.
    b. Project No: 2533-058.
    c. Date Filed: July 31, 2014.
    d. Applicant: City of Brainerd and its Public Utilities Commission.
    e. Name of Project: Brainerd Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is on the Mississippi River in Crow Wing
County, Minnesota.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Arie DeWaal, Mead & Hunt, Inc., 10700 West
Research Drive, Suite 155, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226, Phone: 262-790-
0232.
    i. FERC Contact: M. Joseph Fayyad at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: 30 days from issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
any motion to intervene, protest, comments, and/or recommendations
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2533-058.
    k. Description of Amendment: As licensed, the project's 425-foot-
long primary transmission line segment and related electrical
facilities extend to a point of connection with an adjacent paper mill.
The licensee proposes to relocate the transmission line connection with
the power grid to the nearby North River Bank substation. The new
transmission line system will be approximately 400 feet in length and
consists of three 2.4-kV lines. Also, the licensee proposes to expand
the project boundary to connect to the public Right-of-Way (i.e.,
County Road 20, Riverside Drive) along the existing service road down
to the west embankment of the dam. A similar project boundary expansion
to the public Right-of-Way is at Lum Park and at the French Rapids
site.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number P-2533 in the docket number field to access the
document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license amendment.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an

issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25624 Filed 10-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 71408]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0120]

Agency Information Collection Activities: DOT Technical
Assistance PRA

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the intention of the Office of the Secretary (OST) for
a renewal of a currently approved information collection for the DOT
Technical Assistance PRA, which is summarized below under Supplementary
Information. We are required to publish this notice in the Federal
Register by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Please submit comments by January 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments within 60 days to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer.
All comments received are part of the public record. Comments will
generally be posted without change. All comments should include the
Docket number DOT-OST-2022-0082.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please email
[email protected] or contact Victor Austin at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT, Monday through Friday,
except for Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: DOT Technical Assistance PRA.
    Background: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) enacted as the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (H.R. 3684, Public Law
117-58, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL) created
several new programs at the US Department of Transportation (DOT) that
allow local governments, non-profit organizations, tribal governments,
and other political subdivisions of state or local governments to apply
directly for DOT discretionary grant funding. In response to President
Biden's Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government and Executive
Oder 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,DOT has
included criteria in its notices of funding opportunity to prioritize
the needs of disadvantaged communities for many of these new programs.
    The Thriving Communities Initiative will include programs by which
DOT will utilize cooperative agreements and procurements with technical
assistance and capacity building providers to support communities
seeking to advance transformative, equitable, and climate-friendly
infrastructure projects that benefit disadvantaged communities.
Specifically, these include the Thriving Communities program, the Rural
and Tribal Infrastructure Assistance Pilot Program (see Sec.  21205 of
Pub. L. 117-58), and Asset Concession and Innovative Finance Assistance
Program (see 23 U.S.C. 611 as amended by Sec.  71001 of Pub. L. 117-
58).
    DOT will utilize a Letter of Interest (LOI) or use a simplified in-
take form from communities interested in receiving technical assistance
and capacity building through these programs. Technical assistance and
capacity building is offered by the Government at no charge and with no
required non-federal share.
    Establishment of the program has two distinct tasks: (a)
contracting of technical assistance advisors through a Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO) or existing procurement vehicles; and (b)
recruitment of project sponsors who will receive technical assistance
services. Responding to both will occur on a voluntary basis, utilizing
an electronic platform.
    For item A, eligible applicants to provide technical assistance
through the Thriving Communities program will request cooperative
agreement funding through an application process in response to a
published NOFO. The application is planned as a one-time information
collection. DOT estimates that it will take approximately 20 hours to
complete the NOFO application process used to select capacity builders
under the Thriving Communities program. DOT estimates the recipients of
Thriving Communities program funding will spend another 4 hours,
annually, submitting post-award reports. In addition, reporting
requirements will be submitted by the select capacity building
providers and technical assistance recipients during the
implementation, and evaluation phases.
    For the Rural and Tribal Infrastructure Assistance Pilot Program
and Asset Concession and Innovative Finance Assistance Program,
advisors and technical assistance providers will be contracted using
existing procurement vehicles. Estimated time required for these
programs will be 4 hours annually.
    For item B, the intake form to be used by communities seeking
technical assistance is estimated to take no more than 1 hour to
complete. Recipients of technical assistance support are estimated to
spend no more than 2 hours annually providing evaluation metrics.
    Respondents to Item A (technical assistance providers): for-profit
companies, non-profit organizations, or other technical assistance
providers.
    Respondents to Item B (requestors of technical assistance):
philanthropic entities, non-profit organizations, other Federal
agencies, state or local governments and their agencies, and Indian
Tribes.
    Frequency: Once a year.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 24 hours for
applicants to complete the application process and reporting
requirements and an estimated 30 applicants. Approximately seven hours
to complete the in-take form and evaluation metrics and an estimated 20
project sponsors.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: Approximately 860 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the DOT's performance; (2) the accuracy of
the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the DOT to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that
the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic
technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request
for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended; 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; and 23 CFR chapter 1, subchapter
E, part 450.

    Dated: November 17, 2022.
Mariia Zimmerman,
Strategic Advisor for Technical Assistance and Community Solutions,
Office of the Secretary, US Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2022-25380 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9P-P