[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46149-46152]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0164]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 19 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0164 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: 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.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 19 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Kevin M. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 31, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brown understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.

Alvin J. Chandler

    Mr. Chandler, 54, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Chandler understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Chandler meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Vernon V. Cromartie

    Mr. Cromartie, 60, has had ITDM since approximately 1 year ago. His
endocrinologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cromartie understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cromartie meets
the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.

Eric C. Fuller

    Mr. Fuller, 55, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fuller understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fuller meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class D operator's license from Arizona.

Kevin M. Klevecz

    Mr. Klevecz, 32, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Klevecz understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Klevecz meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.

Matthew R. Lanciault

    Mr. Lanciault, 33, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lanciault understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lanciault meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has stable proliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New
Hampshire.

Steven L. Leslie

    Mr. Leslie, 42, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leslie understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leslie meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Michigan.

Anthony J. Lesmeister

    Mr. Lesmeister, 29, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lesmeister understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lesmeister meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class D operator's license from North Dakota.

Lawrence C. Mace

    Mr. Mace, 64, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mace understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mace meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
B CDL from Pennsylvania.

Del A. Meath

    Mr. Meath, 33, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Meath understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Meath meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

David D. Nelson

    Mr. Nelson, 48, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nelson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nelson meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class B CDL license from North Dakota.

Benny D. Puck

    Mr. Puck, 53, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Puck understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Puck meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Iowa.

Bob F. Rice

    Mr. Rice, 56, has had ITDM since approximately 1990. His
endocrinologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rice understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rice meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Washington.

Thomas P. Ropiak

    Mr. Ropiak, 60, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in

the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ropiak
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Ropiak meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Wisconsin.

Larry L. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 69, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smith understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A operator's license from Indiana.

William G. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 65, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smith understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class D operator's license from Arkansas.

Larry D. Way

    Mr. Way, 63, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Way understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Way meets the vision requirements of
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
B CDL from Ohio.

Paul E. Williams, Jr.

    Mr. Williams, 22, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Williams understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Williams meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class C operator's license from Georgia.

Quintin E. Williams

    Mr. Williams, 52, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Williams understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Williams meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) \1\. The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: July 25, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-18937 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


Attendees List" EPA's Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Procedures Applied under the Clean Water Act May 1, 2003 Holiday Inn Chicago Mart Plaza Chicago, IL Total Attendees: 85 Last Name First Name Organization Artch M. Thorn Creek Basin S. D.

Askew Edward City of Davenport Aspen David General Motors Beard Barbara ASC ENE Beimer Bob Battelle Bingler Linda Battelle Blazer Manja IDEXX Laboratories Bolger Kevin US EPA Burrows Richard Severn Trent Laboratories Christensen Kimberly Orange County Sanitation District Christman James Hunton & Williams, LLC Claff Roger American Petroleum Institute Conry Mike Safety Kleen Cuddeback Joan DynCorp  a CSC company Donndelinger Vincent Safety Kleen Drop Sharon Alcoa, Inc.

Eaton Andrew MWH Labs Elcoate Will Severn Trent Laboratories Forman Ruth Environmental Standards Georgiou Paul Bran+ Luebbe USA Goodman Naomi EPRI Goyette Brian Safety Kleen Grams Nancy Advanced Earth Technologies, Inc.

Grebner Lee IL EPA Griffin Diane East Bay Municipal Utility District Gunter Kenneth US EPA Hall Bill IMC Global Hallstrom Scott Terrachem, Inc.

Hanks Alan Purdue University Henebry Mike IL EPA Henson Richard Compuchem Hoatson Scott Del Mar Analytical Hoover Dale Axys Joshi Avinash Detroit Water & Sewerage Dept.

Kelly Marion US EPA Kennard Misty Frontier Geosciences Inc.

Kung Stanly LADW& P Lacina Carol North Shore Sanitary District LaFleur Larry NCASI Lamb John City of St. Charles Later Douglas Dionex Corporation Lee Patty HRSD Leonova Larisa US EPA Loewe Jeffrey Simalabs International Lowe Deborah Great Lakes Analytical Luksemburt William Alta Analytical Laboratory Lumpkins Carissa Entergy Maglinao Jenn DynCorp  a CSC company Maier Martha Alta Analytical Laboratory McCarty Chip DynCorp  a CSC company Morgan Judith Environmental Sciences Corp.

Okamoto Howard CA Dept. of Health Services Pang Maria Sanitation District of Los Angeles County Piccione Raymond Ecology & Environment, Inc.

Pierri Alfredo Weck Laboratories, Inc.

Piller David Exelon Power Pletl Jim HRSD Polis Robert Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Pronger Greg Suburban Laboratories, Inc.

Quigley Edward US EPA Rearick Norman American Electric Power Rodigari Francois EBMVD Rushneck Dale Interface, Inc.

Ryan Maryann Lab Services, City of Ames, IA Shanks Brad American Chemistry Coucil Siders Scott IL EPA Smith Carol MDEQ Stevens Hank Sac. Regional Co. San. Dist.

Stockton David US EPA Tait Martin Delta Environmental Consultants Talkovska Esfir EMT Telliard Bill US EPA Thomas Jarrett Suburban Laboratories, Inc.

Tintle Andrew Florida DEP Tsai Cheng Wen US EPA Turpin Kelly IL EPA Wanner Brian Abbott Laboratories Ward Gary Columbia Analytical Services Webb Laura US EPA Wilson Anthony Entergy Corporation Wolf Lee Columbia Analytical Services Wright Jeffrey City of Everett Wyatt Susan Minnesota Dept. of Health Wymore Kathy City of St. Charles Yeggy Eric Suburban Laboratories, Inc.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43940-43944]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1052; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-140-AD;
Amendment 39-18210; AD 2015-15-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-13-02,
which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -200B, and -
200F series airplanes. AD 2004-13-02 required repetitive inspections to
find discrepancies in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap
joints, and repair if necessary. This new AD adds post-repair
inspections for cracking and corrosion, and repair if necessary;
structural modification at the lap joints; and post-modification
inspections for cracking and corrosion, and repair if necessary. This
AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH)
that indicates the longitudinal lap joints are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). The actions mandated by this AD are necessary to
reach the limit of validity (LOV). We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage
lap joints, which could result in sudden fracture and failure of a lap
joint and rapid in-flight decompression of the airplane fuselage.

DATES: This AD is effective August 28, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 28,
2015.

ADDRESSES: 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, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
1052.

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-2014-
1052; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6432; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2004-13-02, Amendment 39-13682 (69 FR 35237,
June 24, 2004). AD 2004-13-02 applied to certain The Boeing Company
Model 747-100, -200B, and -200F series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3506). The NPRM was
prompted by an evaluation by the DAH that indicates the longitudinal
lap joints are subject to WFD. A structural modification at the lap
joint, and post-modification repetitive inspections of the skin,
existing internal doubler, or splice strap for cracks, and corrective
actions if necessary, are necessary to reach the limit of validity
(LOV). The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections
to find discrepancies in the upper and lower skins of the fuselage lap
joints, and repair if necessary; and to add post-repair inspections for
cracking and corrosion, and repair if necessary; structural
modification at the lap joints; and post-modification inspections for
cracking and corrosion, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the upper and lower skins of
the fuselage lap joints, which could result in sudden fracture and
failure of a lap joint and rapid in-flight decompression of the
airplane fuselage.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80
FR 3506, January 23, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015)

    Boeing stated that it concurs with the content of the proposed rule
(80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015).

Request To Increase Inspection Frequency for Certain Airplanes

    An anonymous commenter expressed an opinion that there may be more
reason to check airplanes that are frequently pressurized to a greater
than 2.0 per-square-inch (psi) range than those that are not
pressurized to that extent. The commenter also asked if there should be
a weighted system that requires inspections sooner if an airplane has
proportionally more flight cycles in the greater-than-, rather than the
less-than, 2.0-psi differentials.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request for different
inspection intervals based on pressurization ranges. The proposed
inspection intervals were based on airplanes flying in a normal
condition, which included full pressurization. In the past, if an
operator had documentation substantiating flight cycles of less than
2.0 psi, some of the inspection requirements could be reduced. This
reduced inspection requirement was relieving in nature and occurred
roughly 10 years ago. We have since determined that fleet findings did
not support this relief and have disallowed reduced inspection
requirements in future ADs. We have not provided this relief in this
AD. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Increase WFD Rule Applicability

    An anonymous commenter requested a reason why the WFD regulation
applies only to Boeing and not to any other airplane manufacturer. The
commenter stated that it seems like this type of WFD would be present
in more than just Boeing airplanes, and yet the regulation and
requirement for inspection seems to single out Boeing. The commenter
suggested that it would make sense to consolidate and apply these
requirements equally over all the types of airplanes.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. On May 24, 2012, we
made effective Amendment 26-6 of 14 CFR 26.21, ``Limit of Validity,''
of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.21). This regulation
required all design approval holders (DAHs) to develop an LOV for
affected airplanes, which affected several manufacturers and models
(not exclusively Boeing). The LOV is established by means of
engineering data that support the structural maintenance program that
corresponds to the period of time, stated as a number of total
accumulated flight cycles or flight hours or both, during which it is
demonstrated that WFD will not occur in the airplane. We have not
changed this final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3506, January 23, 2015).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2,
dated June 16, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
inspections and repairs of cracks and corrosion in the skin at lap
joints in the fuselage. This service information is reasonably
available because the

interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts                             Cost on U.S.
              Action                       Labor cost           cost     Cost per product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections [actions retained      5,628 work-hours x $85          $0  $478,380 per          $956,760 per
 from AD 2004[dash]13[dash]02,      per hour = $478,380 per             inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
 Amendment 39[dash]13682 (69 FR     inspection cycle.
 35237, June 24, 2004)].
Modification [new action]........  Up to 3,764                     $0  Up to $319,940......  Up to $639,880.
                                    work[dash]hours x $85
                                    per hour = $319,940.
Post-modification/                 Up to 3,764                     $0  Up to $319,940 per    Up to $639,880 per
 post[dash]repair inspections       work[dash]hours x $85               inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
 [new action].                      per hour = $319,940 per
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates 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 AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2004-13-02, Amendment 39-13682 (69 FR 35237, June 24, 2004), and adding
the following new AD:

2015-15-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18210; Docket No. FAA-
2014-1052; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-140-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 28, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2004-13-02, Amendment 39-13682 (69 FR 35237,
June 24, 2004).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, -200B, and
-200F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June
16, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) that indicates the longitudinal lap joints are subject
to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking in the upper and lower skins of the
fuselage lap joints, which could result in sudden fracture and
failure of a lap joint and rapid in-flight decompression of the
airplane fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections for Corrosion, and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 14 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014:
Except as provided by paragraph (l)(3) of this AD, at the applicable
time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, do an
external low frequency eddy current inspection for corrosion at the
upper row of fasteners in the lap joint, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision
2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (l)(1) of
this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Repeat the inspection at the upper row of fasteners in the lap joint
thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463,
Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph
(l)(3) of this AD. Accomplishment of a structural modification in
accordance with Part 5 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463,
Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph
(l)(1) of this AD, terminates the inspection requirements of this
paragraph in the area of the modification only. The actions required
by paragraph (j) of this AD are still applicable in the area of the
modification.

(h) Inspections for Cracking, and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 14 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin

747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014: Except as provided by
paragraph (l)(3) of this AD, at the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, do an internal medium
frequency eddy current inspection for skin cracks at the lower row
of fasteners in the lap joint, and do all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June
16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the
inspection at the lower row of fasteners in the lap joint thereafter
at the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463,
Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph
(l)(3) of this AD. Accomplishment of a structural modification in
accordance with Part 5 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463,
Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph
(l)(1) of this AD, terminates the inspection requirements of this
paragraph in the area of the modification only. The actions required
by paragraph (j) of this AD are still applicable in the area of the
modification.

(i) Structural Modification

    For airplanes identified as Groups 2 through 14 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014: At
the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June
16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, do a
structural modification at the lap joints, and all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision
2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (l)(1) of
this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Accomplishment of the structural modification required by this
paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (g),
(h), and (k) of this AD in the area of the modification only. The
actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD are still applicable in
the area of the modification.

(j) Post-Modification Inspections and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes on which the actions required by paragraph (i) of
this AD have been done: At the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, do an internal high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection for cracks of the skin or existing
internal doublers, and an open-hole HFEC inspection for splice strap
cracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014.
If any cracking is found, before further flight, repair using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (n) of this AD. Repeat the inspections of the skin,
internal doublers, and splice straps thereafter at the applicable
intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014.

(k) Post-Repair Inspections and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes with any new or existing external doubler repair
accomplished at a lap joint and the repair doubler length is 40
inches or longer: At the applicable time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463,
Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, except as provided by paragraph
(l)(2) of this AD, do an internal HFEC inspection for cracking or
corrosion of the repairs, and do all applicable corrective actions,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014,
except as provided by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the inspection of
external doubler repairs accomplished at lap joints thereafter at
the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463,
Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014. Accomplishment of a structural
modification in accordance with Part 5 of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014, except as
provided by paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, terminates the inspection
requirements of this paragraph in the area of the modification only.
The actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD are still
applicable in the area of the modification.

(l) Exceptions

    (1) If, during any action required by this AD, Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014,
specifies to contact Boeing for an inspection or modification
procedure, or repair instructions: Before further flight, do the
inspection, or modification, or repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this
AD.
    (2) Where Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated June 16, 2014,
specifies a compliance time ``after the Revision 2 date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For the compliance threshold and repetitive interval
calculations for inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD, the provisions specified in paragraphs (l)(3)(i) and
(l)(3)(ii) of this AD apply regarding differential pressure.
    (i) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD:
Flight cycles in which the cabin differential pressure was at 2.0
pounds-per-square-inch (psi) or less need not be counted in the
flight-cycle determination, provided that flight cycles with
momentary spikes in cabin differential pressure above 2.0 psi were
included as full pressure flight cycles. For this provision to
apply, all cabin pressure records must have been maintained for each
airplane. No fleet-averaging of cabin pressure is allowed.
    (ii) For inspections done on or after the effective date of this
AD: All flight cycles must be counted, regardless of differential
pressure.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using the service information
identified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, dated March 7,
2002, including Appendices A, B, and C, dated March 7, 2002, which
was incorporated by reference in AD 2004-13-02, Amendment 39-13682
(69 FR 35237, June 24, 2004).
    (2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 1, dated
April 16, 2009, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(n) 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 (o)(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) AMOCs approved for AD 2004-13-02, Amendment 39-13682 (69 FR
35237, June 24, 2004), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference

(IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2463, Revision 2, dated
June 16, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at 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.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 10, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17978 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 188)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55122-55124]
[DOCID:fr28se07-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29337; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-150-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Model Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Corrosion has been reported beneath the heat shield which is
located around the APU (auxiliary power unit) exhaust outlet. Such
corrosion could result in the fuselage being unable to sustain
horizontal and vertical stabiliser loads. This is considered as
potentially hazardous/catastrophic. * * *

The unsafe condition is that the horizontal or vertical stabilizer
might collapse under excessive load, resulting in loss of control of
the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended
to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 29,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web Site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     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: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.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 regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; 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-2007-
29337; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-150-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://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0075, dated March 20, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Corrosion has been reported beneath the heat shield which is
located around the APU (auxiliary power unit) exhaust outlet. Such
corrosion could result in the fuselage being unable to sustain
horizontal and vertical stabiliser loads. This is considered as
potentially hazardous/catastrophic. This AD mandates inspections
necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.

The unsafe condition is that the horizontal or vertical stabilizer
might collapse under excessive load, resulting in loss of control of
the airplane. Corrective actions include repetitive detailed visual
inspections for corrosion, pitted fasteners, or pillowing of the APU
heat shield and surrounding skin and, if applicable, removal of the
heat shield and repair. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-191, dated October 25, 2006. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $160, or $160 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace
Regional Aircraft): Docket No. FAA-2007-29337; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-150-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 29, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Model Avro 146-RJ airplanes; certificated in any
category; all models, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Corrosion has been reported beneath the heat shield which is
located around the APU (auxiliary power unit) exhaust outlet. Such
corrosion could result in the fuselage being unable to sustain
horizontal and vertical stabiliser loads. This is considered as
potentially hazardous/catastrophic. This AD mandates inspections
necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.
    The unsafe condition is that the horizontal or vertical
stabilizer might collapse under excessive load, resulting in loss of
control of the airplane. Corrective actions include repetitive
detailed visual inspections for corrosion, pitted fasteners, or
pillowing of the APU heat shield and surrounding skin and, if
applicable, removal of the heat shield and repair.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months, perform a detailed
visual inspection of the APU heat shield and surrounding skin, in
accordance with paragraph 2.C. of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-191, dated October 25, 2006.
    (2) If any corrosion, pitted fastener, or pillowing is found
during any detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (f)(1)
of this AD, before the next flight, remove the APU heat shield and
repair the affected area in accordance with paragraph 2.D. of BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-191,
dated October 25, 2006.
    (3) For any airplane modified in accordance with BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Modification Service Bulletin SB.53-193-60732A,
dated November 1, 2006, the repetitive interval specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may be extended to 48 months.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0075, dated March 20, 2007; BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-191, dated October 25,
2006; and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Modification Service
Bulletin SB.53-193-60732A, dated November 1, 2006; for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 21, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-19197 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43165-43167]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0926]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lafourche Bayou, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulations governing six
bridges across Bayou Lafourche, south of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The Regulations will now begin on
August 1 vice August 15 of each year. In addition, one of the six
bridges, mile 30.6, is to close 15 minutes earlier than the other
bridges. These closures will facilitate the safe, efficient movement of
staff, students and other residents within the parish.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket [USCG-2011-0926], and are available online by going
to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0926 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Jim Wetherington, D8 Bridge Administration Branch, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 16, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lafourche Bayou,
LA,'' in the Federal Register (77 FR 22520). We received one comment on
the proposed rule and it was in favor of the change. We also received a
request for an additional change specific to the operating schedule for
the SR 308 (South Lafourche (Tarpon)) Vertical Lift Bridge, mile 30.6,
at Galliano, Lafourche Parish, LA. The staff, teachers and students of
South Lafourche High School requested that the start time for this
bridge regulation be 15 minutes earlier, 6:45 a.m. as opposed to 7
a.m., to accommodate the school traffic in this area during school
hours. Due to this request for further modification to the drawbridge
operations not being included as part of the original NPRM, it was
determined that the Coast Guard would reopen the NPRM for additional
comments and provide the public information regarding the additional
modification request. On June 15, 2012, a notice reopening the comment
period for 20 days was published in the Federal Register (77 FR 35897).
We received no comments on the modified proposed rule. No public
meeting was requested, and none was held.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without a full 30 days
before its effective date under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
(5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a
rule without a full 30 days notice before its effective date when the
agency for good cause finds that procedure ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this
rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. A standard 30 day comment period was given for the NPRM. Only
one comment was received and it was in support of the change. After the
receipt of the additional request the comment period was re-opened for
an additional 20 days to allow for further comment. We received no
further comments on this action. It would be contrary to the public
interest to delay the effective date of this rule by providing a full
30 days notice. The school year starts on or about August 1 and this
final rule establishes the operating schedules for the six bridges to
coincide with the school year and safety needs for students and school
traffic.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 170.1 which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to
regulate drawbridge operations.

    The U.S. Coast Guard, at the request of the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development (LDOTD), in conjunction with the
Lafourche Parish Council, is modifying the existing operating schedules
of six bridges across Bayou Lafourche south of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. The six bridges include:
Golden Meadow Vertical Lift Bridge, mile 23.9; the Galliano Pontoon
Bridge, mile 27.8; the SR 308 (South Lafourche (Tarpon)) Vertical Lift
Bridge, mile 30.6; the Cote Blanche Pontoon Bridge, mile 33.9; the
Cutoff Vertical Lift Bridge, mile 36.3; and the Larose Pontoon Bridge,
mile 39.1. The modification of the existing regulations will allow
these bridges to operate on their school year closing schedule from
August 1 through May 31. Changes in the scheduled beginning of the
school year to before August 15 made the regulation confusing to
mariners, the bridge operators and the public. The change in the
effective date of this rule will allow for most date changes that are
inherent to the school scheduling process and be in the best interest
of the public and commercial entities. Additionally, the staff, faculty
and student body of South Lafourche High School requested that the SR
308 (South Lafourche (Tarpon)) Vertical Lift Bridge, mile 30.6, from
now on called the Tarpon Bridge, close 15 minutes earlier, at 6:45 a.m.
as opposed to 7 a.m. The Tarpon Bridge is part of a main route to and
from South Lafourche High School. The school's students, staff, and
faculty face a traffic delay and back up with the current schedule
allowing marine traffic through until just before 7 a.m. This traffic
delay causes a 15-minute back up leading to tardiness of faculty, staff
and students. The request to add an additional 15 minutes to the
morning closure period will allow for the students and faculty to
better transit across the bridge in the morning and will not have a
significant effect on the vessels using the waterway.
    At all other times, the bridges will open on signal, or in
accordance with their published regulation, for the passage of vessels.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    One comment was received with regards to the NPRM from a concerned
citizen who stated that the change made sense. Based upon this comment,
no changes were made to the proposed regulation. However, due to the
additional request to further modify the operation of the Tarpon
Bridge, the comment period was reopened. No comments were received in
reference to the reopening for comment.
    This final rule modifies the starting date of existing bridge
regulations from August 15 to August 1 to coincide with local school
schedules and increases the daily regulation of the Tarpon Bridge by 15
minutes. The only changes in the final rule from those in the proposed
regulatory text are the addition of the words ``unless otherwise
indicated'' after the regulation times. Under the Tarpon Bridge,
subpart (3) in the regulation, the inclusion of specific regulation
times has also been made.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it merely
modifies the starting date of existing bridge regulations to coincide
with local school schedules and increases the daily regulation of the
Tarpon Bridge by only 15 minutes.
    The changes to these bridge regulations will allow for better
vehicle traffic service during peak school hours throughout the year.
The new starting date allows for the flexibility needed to accommodate
an ever changing school calendar and the new starting time for the
Tarpon Bridge allows for the safe and timely arrival of students and
staff while still providing vessel traffic a consistent schedule. This
rule allows vessels ample opportunity to transit this waterway with
proper notification before and after the peak vehicular traffic
periods.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the bridges Monday through Friday except Federal holidays during the
hours of 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m.
to 5:30 p.m. from August 1 through August 14 and owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the Tarpon Bridge between 6:45 a.m. and
6:59 a.m.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the change only adds two
weeks to the current regulation and 15 minutes to the current Tarpon
Bridge regulation. The current rule has been in effect for these
vessels and waterway users since 2006. This change extends the
effective period for the known restrictions to coincide with the full
school year and allow for the safe and expedient arrival of staff
faculty and students as well as other bridge users, which was the
original intent of this rule.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protestors.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the regulation of drawbridge
operations. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.465, paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(3) are
revised to read as follows:

Sec.  117.465  Lafourche Bayou.

    (a) The draws of the following bridges shall open on signal; except
that, from August 1 through May 31, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessels Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 7
a.m. to 8:30 a.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30
p.m., unless otherwise indicated:
    * * *
    (3) SR 308 (South Lafourche (Tarpon)) Bridge, mile 30.6, at
Galliano, need not open for the passage of vessels from August 1
through May 31, Monday through Friday except Federal holidays from 6:45
a.m. to 8:30 a.m.; from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30
p.m.
* * * * *

    Dated: July 13, 2012.
Peter Troedsson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2012-17949 Filed 7-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P