UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

			PC Code:	 098301

			DB barcode: D331536

MEMORANDUM

August 25th, 2006

Subject:	EFED Response to Public Comments for Aldicarb RED:

	Docket ID# Opp-2005-0163-0048

To:	Bob McNally, Branch Chief

	Ann Overstreet, Team Leader

	Sherrie Kinard, Chemical Review Manager

Special Review Branch

Reregistration Division

From:		Jonathan Angier

		Jeannette Martinez

		Donna Randall

Environmental Risk Branch II

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Through:	Dana Spatz, RAPL

Tom Bailey, Ph.D, Branch Chief, ERB II,

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Attached is the completed EFED response to public comments to the most
recent Aldicarb RED (May 2005).

1) Public comments regarding lack of terrestrial incidents reported

National Cotton Council and California Cotton Growers Association
comments: “While the preliminary risk assessment predicts nearly 100%
mortality of birds and mammals for nearly all application scenarios,
there have been few documented incidences of field kills of birds and
mammals in the U.S. associated with label uses of Temik. This enormous
database based upon 35 years of actual use experience with Temik
obviously has not been seriously taken into consideration.”

EPA comments to both parties:   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Despite the lack of
great numbers of incident reports for aldicarb, avian field studies
using this pesticide definitively demonstrate potential ecological risk
following labeled application (See Section IV.A.2 of the ecological risk
assessment).  Based on the results of these field studies, it cannot be
concluded that low numbers of ecological incident reports indicate low
ecological risk.  It should be noted that there are no mammalian field
studies for aldicarb.  Additionally, there are numerous factors that may
contribute to the lack of reported incidents in the Agency’s database
and include among other the lack of a systematic or reliable reporting
mechanism (incident reporting is not required) and problems with carcass
detection.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Currently, no systematic or reliable mechanism
exists for the accurate monitoring and reporting of wildlife kill
incidents to the Agency.  Moreover, before a pesticide incident can be
reported or investigated, the dead animals must first be found.  In the
absence of monitoring following pesticide applications, kills are not
likely to be noticed in agro-environments which are generally away from
human activity. Even if onlookers are present, dead wildlife species,
particularly small song birds and mammals, are easily overlooked, even
by experienced and highly motivated observers. Even in sparse vegetative
cover, wildlife carcass detection is difficult and as vegetative cover
increases the difficulty in detection is exacerbated.  Under some
circumstances intoxicated animals may seek heavy cover before dying
which decreases the probability of detection further. Poisoned birds may
fly from the sites, succumbing outside of the area or scavengers may
remove carcasses before they can be observed, significantly reducing the
chance of detection.

2) Public comment regarding granular applicators

Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association and Florida Citrus Mutual
comments:

“All applications are made only with granular applicators that use
positive displacement metering units. The same piece of machinery that
administers the Temik also buries the granules simultaneously to a depth
of at least two inches below the soil surface to prevent offsite
movement or non-target contamination. The application is uniformly made
by spreading the granules throughout an area that is about three to four
feet wide within the dripline on both sides of the tree, and then
immediately working the granules down and into the soil. Placing the
Temik within the tree dripline reduces exposure to potential
rainfall.”

EPA comments to both parties: Placing the product within the tree
dripline does not limit exposure to rainfall, as much of the rain that
is intercepted by the tree canopy is funneled and directed toward the
tree trunk.  Thus, considerable amounts of precipitation will flow down
the tree trunk and around the base of the tree (within the dripline) as
stemflow.

At a depth of 2 inches below the surface, there is a high probability
that some of the product will be brought back up to the surface as a
result of bioturbation, where it may then be subject to offsite
movement.  Product buried 2 inches or so below the surface cannot
realistically be considered to be entirely segregated from the surface
or completely restricted from offsite movement/non-target contamination.

EPA believes that even an initial 99% incorporation efficiency is
over-optimistic.  Although 99% efficiency may be achievable under ideal
circumstances with optimally calibrated equipment, under most field
conditions there is likely to be less efficiency due to non-ideal field
settings (e.g., soil too wet or too dry, uneven topography, natural
small-scale spatial variations in soil surface texture, crusting,
shallow hardpans, etc.), handling error, and other unforeseen
circumstances.

3) Public comment regarding Agency’s Avian Reproduction Guideline
Requirement request

Bayer Crop Science comment: With respect to the identification of avian
reproduction studies as a data gap, BCS continues to believe that
chronic studies are unnecessary for aldicarb based on the mode of action
of the chemical and the wealth of knowledge about the rapid
reversibility and recovery of animals that are sublethally exposed. The
Agency’s responses to this matter amount to saying ‘even if we
don’t know how to use the results of these studies in a risk
assessment, we still need the data because our policy is to require them
based on use pattern and persistence’. BCS believes that animal
testing should not be requested unless the data are going to be used in
a risk assessment.

EPA comment: For clarification, EPA will quote its own writing to
reiterate why BCS needs to submit bird reproduction studies.

“Although the current LD50 per square foot method does not
quantitatively calculate an RQ value, this does not preclude the need
for an avian reproduction study.  Due to the systemic nature of aldicarb
and the persistence of the equally toxic aldicarb sulfoxide in plant
tissue, ingestion of plant food items in fields treated with aldicarb is
a major chronic exposure pathway.  Therefore, registrant-submitted plant
residue studies can be utilized to estimate the potential chronic
exposure levels to birds and mammals that feed on such items in
aldicarb-treated fields (see attachment). It is understood that the
plants used in the residue studies (sugar beets, lettuce, mint) are
representative of other plants which may grow in aldicarb-treated fields
and serve as food sources for terrestrial wildlife.   Using available
residue studies, it is possible to quantitatively calculate a chronic
terrestrial organism RQ value.

However, avian studies are still required by the Agency, whether a
quantitative RQ is calculated or not.  Knowledge of the potential for
aldicarb to cause chronic reproductive effects in birds is necessary in
order to perform a complete ecological risk assessment.  Although the
chronic mammalian data was not used to calculate an RQ value, the
results from these studies suggest the potential for deleterious chronic
effects, and this fact was discussed in the risk characterization.  The
purpose of the RQ calculation is to allow for a numerical estimation of
potential risk; inability to perform an RQ calculation does not preclude
risk, and therefore does not provide adequate grounds for waiving data
requirements.”

In conclusion, bird reproduction guideline requirements need to be
fulfilled so that the Agency can assess chronic effects to birds from a
descriptive characterization perspective.

4) Public comment regarding Agency’s Photodegradation in Water and
Terrestrial Field Dissipation Guideline Requirement requests

Bayer Crop Science comment: “In the November 30, 2005 response to
submitted comments on the EFED RED chapter, EPA agrees that 161-2
(photodegradation in water) is unnecessary and 164-1 (terrestrial field
dissipation) has been fulfilled. Therefore these two studies should be
eliminated from the list of data requirements on page 2 of the revised
RED.”

EPA comment: These two studies have been removed from the list of data
requirements.

5) Public comment regarding incorporation efficiency used in PRZM-EXAMS
modeling

Bayer Crop Science comment: “Inspite (sic) of the Agency’s comment
that 99% incorporation efficiency was assumed in its assessment, the
PRZM-EXAMs modeling they peformed (sic) still appears to have been
conducted assuming 85% incorporation for all scenarios evaluated.”

EPA comment: Agency erred in stating that ‘All model runs were
conducted with an assigned incorporation efficiency of 99%.’  The
statement should have been application efficiency instead of
incorporation efficiency.  For these model runs, 15% of the application
rate was used; however, this 15% was distributed within the top 4 cm of
soil.  Therefore, the amount available directly on the surface was less
than 15%, but more than 1%.  The revised modeling that has been
conducted (and will be included in the updated assessment) only accounts
for 1% of the application, but all of that 1% is directly on the soil
surface (none incorporated within the top 4 cm).  Numerous other revised
model results have already been conducted, including the use of typical
rather than maximum rates.

6) Public comment regarding degradation rate used in PRZM-EXAMS modeling

Bayer Crop Science comment: “As demonstrated by the data in Jones and
Estes (1995), the degradation rate of aldicarb appears to be a strong
function of temperature and therefore, this dependence should be taken
into consideration in a refined risk assessment. While usually this
would be accomplished by normalizing the degradation rate obtained in
field studies to a common temperature and soil moisture, the large data
base for aldicarb allows the direct estimation of the degradation rate.
An examination of this data base indicates that for applications in
Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida a degradation rate corresponding to a
half-life of 15-20 days would be more appropriate than a degradation
rate corresponding to a half-life of 55 days and so a degradation rate
corresponding to a half-life of 18.25 days was used in the refined
modeling performed by BCS.”

EPA comment: Agency reiterates the statement that interregional soil
surface temperatures deviate less during the growing season than mean
annual soil temperatures would suggest (e.g., there is far less
difference in shallow soil temperatures between Minnesota and
Mississippi in July – part of the growing (and application) season –
than in January), so there should also be little deviation in
temperature-mediated aerobic degradation rates.  The agency would have
to thoroughly evaluate the “large data base for aldicarb (that) allows
the direct estimation of the degradation rate” in order to justify
using local degradation rates.  Degradation rates will also be affected
by other soil characteristics, which would have to be accounted for so
that only the effect of temperature on aerobic soil degradation could be
isolated.  Results from field studies are not adequate for this task, as
there are multiple dissipation routes at every site that will vary from
locale to locale.  The agency at present does not have sufficient cause
to apply specific local degradation rates for the purpose of modeling
the fate of aldicarb.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50712-50713]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20088]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 31a-1; OMB Control No. 3235-0178; SEC File No. 270-173.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 31a-1 (17 CFR 270.31a-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a) is entitled ``Records to be
maintained by registered investment companies, certain majority-owned
subsidiaries thereof, and other persons having transactions with
registered investment companies.'' Rule 31a-1 requires registered
investment companies (``funds''), and every underwriter, broker,
dealer, or investment adviser that is a majority-owned subsidiary of a
fund, to maintain and keep current accounts, books, and other documents
which constitute the record forming the basis for financial statements
required to be filed pursuant to section 31 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-
30) and of the auditor's certificates relating thereto. The rule lists
specific records to be maintained by funds. The rule also requires
certain underwriters, brokers, dealers, depositors, and investment
advisers to maintain the records that they are required to maintain
under federal securities laws. The Commission periodically inspects the
operations of funds to insure their compliance with the provisions of
the Act and the rules thereunder. The books and records required to be
maintained by rule 31a-1 constitute a major focus of the Commission's
inspection program.
    There are approximately 4132 investment companies registered with
the Commission, all of which are required to comply with rule 31a-1.
For purposes of determining the burden imposed by rule 31a-1, the
Commission staff estimates that each fund is divided into approximately
four series, on average, and that each series is required to comply
with the recordkeeping requirements of rule 31a-1. Based on
conversations with fund representatives, it is estimated that rule 31a-
1 imposes an average burden of approximately 1750 hours annually per
series for a total of 7000 annual hours per fund. The estimated total
annual burden for all 4132 funds subject to the rule therefore is
approximately 28,924,000 hours. Based on conversations with fund
representatives, however, the Commission staff estimates that even
absent the requirements of rule 31a-1, 90 percent of the records
created pursuant to the rule are the type that generally would be
created as a matter of normal business practice and to prepare
financial statements. Thus, the Commission staff estimates that the
total annual burden associated with rule 31a-1 is 2,892,400 hours.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. The collection
of information required by rule 31a-1 is mandatory. Responses will not
be kept confidential. The records required by rule 31a-1 are required
to be preserved pursuant to rule 31a-2 under the Investment Company Act
(17 CFR 270.31a-2). Rule 31a-2 requires that certain of these records
be preserved permanently, and that others be preserved six years from
the end of the fiscal year in which any transaction

occurred. In both cases, the records should be kept in an easily
accessible place for the first two years. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Chief Information Officer,
Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 19, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20088 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ESA STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (JUNE 29  -  30, 2016):
Breakout Sessions WOE 1 and WOE 2: Weight of Evidence for Listed Animals and Plants
The draft biological evaluations for chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion rely upon a weight of evidence (WoE) approach to make species-specific effects determinations. Risk conclusions are based on the integration of exposure and effects information relevant to an individual of a listed species, as well as life history characteristics that may influence exposure or indirect effects (e.g., diet). Different types of effects are identified in this approach as separate lines of evidence; including: mortality, growth, reproduction, behavior, sensory effects and indirect effects. Additionally, other factors that could affect the magnitude of both direct and indirect effects (e.g., chemical or abiotic stressors) are evaluated as lines of evidence. Weighting is applied to each line of evidence and the weighting criteria provide guidelines for supporting effects determinations based on the pairings of risk and confidence.   The current weighting criteria are defined in Attachment 1-9.

An effort was made to incorporate and evaluate as much toxicity and exposure data as possible to determine whether adverse effects are anticipated from the effects of the action. Both the toxicity and exposure information are evaluated to determine the risk and confidence associated with each line of evidence. Currently, the process uses numeric thresholds to determine risk.  EPA and the services have discussed integrating distributions of effects and exposures to move towards a more probabilistic approach (e.g., such as the method used in the Terrestrial Investigation Model); however, this is seen as more of a long term goal for application to all species. EPA and the Services are interested in suggestions that improve the WoE method.  When addressing the questions below, answers will be grouped into "short term" or "long term" solutions, considering the magnitude of work associated with developing and applying the methods to all listed species (n ≈ 1800).

The same set of questions will be considered by the WoE groups focused on plants and on animals; however, the discussions are expected to differ. For instance, issues related to exposure differ between animals and plants in that the routes and models are conceptually and mathematically different. For effects, data are available for multiple lines of evidence for assessing direct effects to animals (i.e., mortality, growth, reproduction, behavior and sensory); whereas mortality, growth and reproduction data are only available for plants. It is expected that discussions related to animals will likely surround the topics of assessing direct effects to listed individuals as well as indirect effects due to impacts on animals and plants. For plants, discussions should probably focus more on indirect effects due to impacts to animals upon which they depend (e.g., for pollination or seed dispersal).

 Exposure Information- Criteria used to assess exposure estimates ultimately answer the question, "how confident are we that exposure estimates represent environmental concentrations that could occur based on allowable labeled use?" The current approach for characterizing exposure considers the relevance of predicted EECs for species' habitats and the robustness of EECs derived from environmental fate models (see Attachment 1-9 for more details). Considering the current approach to characterizing exposure:
 CHARGE QUESTION 1: Comment on/suggest alternative methods for presenting exposure information (e.g., probability distributions, consideration of a range of exposure estimates, consideration of duration of exposure) and how the information can be weighed for each line of evidence's risk conclusion.
 CHARGE QUESTION 2: Comment on the criteria used to weight Confidence in the estimation of exposure as described in Supplemental Information to Attachment 1-9.

 Effects Information- Similar to the exposure characterization, the effects data are evaluated to answer the question, "how confident are we that available toxicity data will accurately predict an effect to the listed species?" The current approach considers 1) biological relevance- whether there is an established relationship between the measure of effect and the assessment endpoint, 2) relevance of surrogate- how representative the tested organisms used in the toxicity studies are at informing the potential for adverse effects to listed species or critical habitat, and 3) robustness- whether there is consistency within the line of evidence for the taxonomic grouping of interest (see Attachment 1-9 for more details). Considering the current approach to characterizing effects:
 CHARGE QUESTION 3: Comment on approaches for incorporating data quality into the weight assigned to a line of evidence. The current approach to data quality is described in Attachment 1-8.
 CHARGE QUESTION 4a: For animals, to what extent can taxa with robust data sets be used as surrogates for other taxonomic groupings where lines of evidence have little or no data (e.g., mammals for reptiles)?
 CHARGE QUESTION 4b:  For plants, comment on the approach to surrogacy. Is there a better or more representative way to group species?
 CHARGE QUESTION 5: How can we more effectively incorporate the breadth of the available toxicity information (i.e., not just the most sensitive endpoints), including magnitude of effect, into the characterization of effects and weight of evidence?
 CHARGE QUESTION 6: How can we effectively weigh the impacts of other stressors (e.g., temperature) on the LAA/NLAA call, especially in the event of little or no data? CHARGE QUESTION 7: Are there additional sublethal effects that have an established relationship with an assessment endpoint that should be considered as lines of evidence?
 CHARGE QUESTION 8: Comment on the criteria used to weight Confidence in the estimation of effects as described in Supplemental Information to Attachment 1-9.

 Risk Estimation- Risk is established by comparing the overlap of exposure with effect levels from available toxicity studies for each line of evidence. Consideration is given to the degree of overlap between exposure and effects data. Considering the current approach to estimating risk:
 CHARGE QUESTION 9: Comment on the criteria used to weight Risk as described in Supplemental Information to Attachment 1-9.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 18279]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08732]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R07-OW-2019-0189; FRL-9992-24-Region 7]

Notice of Approval of the Primacy Revision Application for the
Public Water System Supervision Program From the State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval and solicitation of requests for a public
hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby giving
notice that the state of Iowa is revising its approved Public Water
System Supervision Program delegated to the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR). EPA has reviewed the application and intends to
approve these program revisions.

DATES: This determination to approve the Iowa program revision is made
pursuant to 40 CFR 142.12(d)(3). This determination shall become final
and effective on May 30, 2019, unless (1) a timely and appropriate
request for a public hearing is received or (2) the Regional
Administrator elects to hold a public hearing on his own motion. Any
interested person, other than Federal Agencies, may request a public
hearing.
    A request for a public hearing must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator at the address shown below by May 30, 2019. If a request
for a public hearing is made within the requested thirty-day time
frame, a public hearing will be held and a notice will be given in the
Federal Register and a newspaper of general circulation. Frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional
Administrator. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is
received, and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a
hearing on his own motion, this determination will become effective on
May 30, 2019.
    All interested parties may request a public hearing on the approval
to the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 7 address shown below.

ADDRESSES: Requests for Public Hearing shall be addressed to: Regional
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Harden, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, Drinking Water Management Branch, (913)
551-7723, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA is hereby giving notice that the
state of Iowa is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision
Program. IDNR revised their program by incorporating the following EPA
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 387, January 4, 2006), Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (71 FR 653, January 5, 2006),
Ground Water Rule (71 FR 65573, November 8, 2006), Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications (72 FR 57781,
October 10, 2007), Revised Total Coliform Rule (78 FR 10269, February
13, 2013) and Minor Corrections to the Total Coliform Rule (79 FR
10665, February 26, 2014). The EPA has determined that IDNR's program
revisions are consistent with and no less stringent than Federal
regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these program revisions.

Public Hearing Requests

    Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination and a brief statement on information that
the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; (3) the
signature of the individual making the request or, if the request is
made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity. Requests for
Public Hearing shall be addressed to: Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    All documents relating to this determination are available for
inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday at the following offices: (1) Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, Drinking Water Management Branch, Water Wetlands and
Pesticides Division, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 and
(2) the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office
Building, 502 East 9th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319.

(Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended,
and 40 CFR 142.10, 142.12(d) and 142.13)

    Dated: April 19, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2019-08732 Filed 4-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20178-20181]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0828; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-146-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-23-
03, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2013-23-03 currently
requires doing a detailed inspection of certain attach fittings for a
cylindrical defect and replacing if necessary. Since we issued AD 2013-
23-03, we received a report that a machining defect was also found on
some of the actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture. This
defect could lead to fatigue cracking and subsequent fracture. For
certain airplanes, this proposed AD would mandate new inspections of
the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and
overhaul or replacement, if necessary. This proposed AD would also
limit the compliance time for doing the replacement for certain other
airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct defective
inboard actuator attach fittings which, combined with loss of the
outboard actuator load path, could result in uncontrolled retraction of
the outboard flap, damage to flight control systems, and consequent
reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0828.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0828; 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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2015-0828;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-146-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On October 31, 2013, we issued AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658
(78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), for certain The Boeing Company Model
747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300,
747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2013-23-03
requires inspecting to determine the part number of the inboard
actuator attach fittings of the outboard flap. For affected attach
fittings, AD 2013-23-03 requires doing a detailed inspection of the
attach fittings for a cylindrical defect and replacing if necessary. As
an option to the detailed inspection, AD 2013-23-03 allows replacement
of affected attach fittings. AD 2013-23-03 resulted from a report of
the fracture of an inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap. An inspection of the attach fitting revealed that it was
incorrectly machined with a cylindrical profile instead of a conical
profile, resulting in reduced wall thickness. We issued AD 2013-23-03
to detect and correct defective inboard actuator attach fittings which,
combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path, could result in
uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight control
systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November
14, 2013) Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345,
November 14, 2013), specified that we considered the requirements
``interim action.'' AD 2013-23-03 explained that we might consider
further rulemaking to require a minimum thickness inspection of inboard
actuator attach fittings that are conically machined. Since we issued
AD 2013-23-03, we received a report that a machining defect was also
found on some of the actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture
at the point where the tapered machining transitioned to the
hemispherical machining at the top of the inner surface. Revised
service information has been issued and, for certain airplanes, this
proposed AD would mandate new

inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining
defects, and overhaul or replacement, if necessary. This proposed AD
would also limit the compliance time for doing the replacement, for
certain other airplanes.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1,
dated June 23, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
new inspections of the inboard actuator attach fittings for machining
defects, and overhaul or replacement, if necessary. This service
information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access
this service information.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Related AD

    This proposed AD is related to AD 2005-20-18, Amendment 39-14312
(70 FR 57740, October 4, 2005), for Model 747-100, -200B, -200F, -200C,
-100B, -300 series airplanes. AD 2005-20-18 required nspecting and
overhauling, replacing, or repairing (as applicable) the actuator
attach fittings on the inboard and outboard flaps of the wing. The
replacement was done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
57A2316.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2013-
23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013). For certain
airplanes, this proposed AD would mandate new inspections of the
inboard actuator attach fittings for machining defects, and overhaul or
replacement, if necessary. This proposed AD would also limit the
compliance time for doing the replacement for certain other airplanes.
This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 184 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost per          Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost        product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained inspection for part        7 work-hours x $85                 $0            $595  $109,480.
 number in AD 2013-23-03,            per hour = $595.
 Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345,
 November 14, 2013).
New proposed inspections for        8 work-hours x $85                  0             680  125,120.
 machining defect.                   per hour = $680.
Replacement for airplanes without   6 work-hours x $85             13,720          14,230  14,230 per airplane.
 any defect.                         per hour = $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this 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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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)
2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-0828; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-146-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 1, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345,
November 14, 2013).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of the fracture of an inboard
actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap. An inspection of the
attach fitting revealed that it was incorrectly machined with a
cylindrical profile instead of a conical profile, resulting in
reduced wall thickness. A machining defect was also found on some
actuator assemblies inspected during manufacture at the point where
the tapered machining transitioned to the hemispherical machining at
the top of the inner surface. This defect could lead to fatigue
cracking and subsequent fracture. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct defective inboard actuator attach fittings which,
combined with loss of the outboard actuator load path, could result
in uncontrolled retraction of the outboard flap, damage to flight
control systems, and consequent reduced controllability of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Part Number Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013),
with revised service information. Within 90 days after November 29,
2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-23-03): Inspect to determine the
part number of the inboard actuator attach fittings of the outboard
flaps, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12,
2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1,
dated June 23, 2014. As of the effective date of this AD, only
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014, may be used.

(h) Retained Actions for Certain Attach Fittings

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR 68345, November 14, 2013),
with revised service information. If, during the inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, any inboard actuator attach fitting
having part number (P/N) 65B08564-7 is found, before further flight,
do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the inboard actuator attach
fitting for a cylindrical defect, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, dated September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. As of the effective
date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343,
Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014, may be used. For airplanes on which
the detailed inspection is done before the effective date of this
AD: If any cylindrical defect is found, before further flight, do
the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this
AD.
    (i) Do a minimum thickness inspection of the inboard actuator
attach fitting to determine minimum wall thickness of the actuator
fitting assembly, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated
September 12, 2013; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343,
Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014. If the minimum thickness of the
wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further flight, replace the
inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance
with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747 57A2343, dated September 12, 2013.
    (ii) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12,
2013.
    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12,
2013.

(i) New Actions For Certain Airplanes on Which Any Cylindrical Defect
Is Found

    For airplanes on which the detailed inspection required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD is done on or after the effective date
of this AD: If any cylindrical defect is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do
the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Determine the minimum wall thickness of the actuator attach
fitting either by doing an ultrasonic inspection or by mechanically
measuring the thickness and do a detailed inspection of the inner
conical section to determine if the machining defect is present, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (i) If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130
inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach
fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (ii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or
greater and the machining defect is present, before further flight,
do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(A) or (i)(1)(ii)(B)
of this AD.
    (A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.
    (B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.
    (iii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or
greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is not
present, within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard
actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with
Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (iv) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or
greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is
present, before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach
fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.

(j) New Actions for Airplanes on Which No Cylindrical Defects Are Found

    If no cylindrical defect is found during any inspection required
by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, within 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or
(j)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Determine the minimum wall thickness of the actuator attach
fitting either by doing an ultrasonic inspection or by mechanically
measuring the thickness and do a detailed inspection of the inner
conical section to determine if the machining defect is present, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (i) If the minimum thickness of the wall is less than 0.130
inch: Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach
fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (ii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.140 inch or
greater and the machining defect is present, before further flight,
do the actions specified in paragraph (j)(1)(ii)(A) or (j)(1)(ii)(B)
of this AD.
    (A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.
    (B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.

    (iii) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or
greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is not
present, within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard
actuator attach fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with
Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (iv) If the minimum thickness of the wall is 0.130 inch or
greater and less than 0.140 inch and the machining defect is
present, before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach
fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.

(k) New Inspection or Replacement for Certain Fittings That Were
Previously Inspected

    For airplanes with any inboard actuator attach fitting having P/
N 65B08564-7 installed and the fitting was inspected in accordance
with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, dated September 12, 2013: Within 24
months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified
in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the inner conical section for
machining defects only, in accordance with Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (i) If any machining defect is found and the minimum thickness
of the wall is 0.140 inch or greater: Before further flight, do the
actions specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A) or (k)(1)(i)(B) of this
AD.
    (A) Overhaul the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.
    (B) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.
    (ii) If any machining defect is found and the minimum thickness
of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch:
Before further flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting
of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (iii) If no machining defect is found and the minimum thickness
of the wall is 0.130 inch or greater and less than 0.140 inch:
Within 48 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the inboard actuator attach
fitting of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
57A2343, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2014.
    (iv) If a machining defect is or is not found and the minimum
thickness of the wall is less than 0.130 inch: Before further
flight, replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.
    (2) Replace the inboard actuator attach fitting of the outboard
flap, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343, Revision 1, dated June
23, 2014.

(l) Part Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no actuator attach fitting
having P/N 65B08564-7 that meets the requirements of CONDITION 5 or
CONDITION 6 defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-57A2343,
dated September 12, 2013, may be installed on any airplane unless
the inspection specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD is done and
the applicable actions in paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii),
(k)(1)(iii), and (k)(1)(iv) are done within the applicable times
specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), (k)(1)(iii), and
(k)(1)(iv) of this AD.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) If any service information contains steps that are
identified as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done
to comply with this AD; any steps that are not identified as RC are
recommended. Those steps that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC provided the steps identified as RC can be done
and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any
substitutions or changes to steps identified as RC require approval
of an AMOC.
    (5) AMOCs approved for AD 2013-23-03, Amendment 39-17658 (78 FR
68345, November 14, 2013) are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 6, 2015.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-08464 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P