[Federal Register: June 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34233-34237]
[DOCID:fr17jn08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001-NM-237-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 767-200 and -300
series airplanes. That proposed rule would have required replacing
certain door-mounted escape slides and slide-raft assemblies with new
slide-raft assemblies; replacing certain escape system latches with new
latches; and modifying or replacing certain counterbalance assemblies
with new counterbalance assemblies; as applicable. This new action
revises the proposed rule by extending the compliance time, adding
requirements to install a longer firing cable and test the valve of the
inflation trigger system of the slide-raft, and, for certain airplanes,
adding procedures to adjust the door counter balance systems. The
actions specified by this new proposed AD are intended to prevent the
escape slides and slide-rafts of the forward and mid-cabin entry and
service doors from being too steep for evacuation in the event that the
airplane rotates onto the aft fuselage into the extreme tip-back
condition. In the extreme tip-back condition, the forward and mid-cabin
exits could result in steeper sliding angles, which could cause injury
to passengers and crewmembers during an emergency evacuation. This
action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-237-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments sent via fax or the Internet must
contain ``Docket No. 2001-NM-237-AD'' in the subject line and need not
be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached
electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 2000 or
ASCII text.
    The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Ladderud, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in
light of the comments received.
    Submit comments using the following format:
     Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a
request to change the compliance time and a request to change the
service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
     For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed
AD is being requested.
     Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each
request.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 2001-NM-237-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 2001-NM-237-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356.

Discussion

    A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to
certain Boeing Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, was published
as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on
November 25, 2003 (68 FR 66026). That NPRM would have required
replacing certain door-mounted escape slides and slide-raft assemblies
with new slide-raft assemblies; replacing certain escape system latches
with new latches; and modifying or replacing certain counterbalance
assemblies with new counterbalance assemblies; as applicable. That NPRM
was prompted by reports indicating that the original analysis of the
highest sill heights for the forward and mid-cabin entry and service
doors is no longer valid on certain Boeing Model 737-200 and -300
series airplanes. That condition, if not corrected, could result in
injury to passengers and crewmembers during an emergency evacuation.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Proposal

    Since the issuance of that NPRM, we have received three reports of
uncommanded deployments of the door-mounted escape slide inside the
passenger cabin. The uncommanded inflation caused damage to a lavatory,
ceiling panels, and doors. It has been determined that variability in
packing the slide can result in excessive tension on the firing cable.
Therefore, certain affected airplanes must have a longer firing cable
installed, and the inflation trigger system must be tested. To
accommodate this change, Boeing has issued the following service
bulletins:
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0266, Revision 2,
dated September 27, 2007. We referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-25-0266, dated September 14, 2000, as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing the required actions in the
original NPRM. In addition to the existing actions, Revision 2 of the
service bulletin specifies procedures to adjust the door counterbalance
systems for Group 1 and 2 airplanes (procedures were added in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0266, Revision 1, dated December 4,
2006). Revision 2 of the service bulletin also specifies that more work
is necessary on airplanes changed in accordance with the procedures
specified in the original release of the service bulletin. Revision 2
also includes a reference to the procedures in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1, adds instructions for adjusting the
door counterbalance system for certain airplanes, and corrects certain
part numbers (P/Ns), among other changes.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1,
dated January 25, 2007. This service bulletin describes procedures for
determining if a slide-raft with supplier P/N 5A3294-1, 5A3294-2,
5A3295-1, or 5A3295-3 (Boeing P/N S416T214-3, S416T214-4, S416T214-2,
and S416T214-1, respectively), is installed. If those P/Ns are not
installed, the service bulletin specifies that no further action is
necessary. If any of those P/Ns are installed, the service bulletin
provides procedures for lengthening the firing cable and testing the
valve of the inflation trigger system of the escape slide-raft.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1, refers to
Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3294/5A3295-25-362, dated July 25, 2006, as
an additional source of service information for lengthening the firing
cable and testing the valve of the inflation trigger system of the
escape slide-raft.

Comments

    Due consideration has been given to the comments received in
response to the original NPRM:

Support for the Original NPRM

    Airline Pilots Association, International (ALPA) concurs with the
corrective actions in the original NPRM.

Support for Replacement Parts

    Goodrich Aircraft Interior Products states that it is prepared to
support the need for replacement parts within the compliance time
specified in the original NPRM.

Request To Clarify the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requests a change to the wording of the unsafe condition in
the Summary and Discussion sections of the NPRM. Boeing states that the
existing slide-rafts are not ``too short to reach the ground'' as
stated in the NPRM, but that the extreme tip-back condition results in
a steeper sliding angle than the original design intent. Boeing
requests that we instead specify, among other suggested wording, that
``In the extreme tip-back condition, the forward and mid-cabin exits on
one side of the airplane could result in steeper sliding angles. * *
*''
    We partially agree with the requested changes. We disagree with
using the words ``one side of the airplane''

because they imply that passengers and crewmembers could safely
evacuate from the side of the airplane with the lower sliding angles.
Damage associated with a landing gear failure on the lower side of the
airplane could cause passengers and crewmembers to perceive that only
the side of the airplane with the sliding angle that is ``too steep for
evacuation'' would be available for emergency evacuation. In addition,
this type of failure could render the exits on the lower, damaged side
to be unusable and/or unsafe. We agree with the other requested changes
because they clarify the unsafe condition. We have revised the Summary
section accordingly. However, we have not revised the Discussion
section since that section of the preamble does not reappear in the
same form in the supplemental NPRM. Instead, the Discussion section in
the supplemental NPRM restates the wording of the original NPRM for
reference.

Requests To Revise Cost Impact Section

    Goodrich Aircraft Interior Products, All Nippon Airways (ANA),
Boeing, and Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member
American Airlines, all request that we revise the Cost Impact section
of the NPRM. All commenters state that the costs shown in the NPRM are
incomplete and should be revised.
    We agree with the commenters. The Cost Impact section of the NPRM
did not include the cost of the slide-rafts. We have revised the Cost
Impact section of the supplemental NPRM to include those costs.

Requests To Extend Compliance Time

    Boeing, ANA, and Air New Zealand request that we extend the
compliance time. The commenters suggest extending the compliance time
from the proposed 5 years to between 8 and 15 years. The commenters
make their requests to extend the compliance time for numerous reasons,
including:
     The proposed rule has a high economic impact on the
operators, with small benefit to safety. Data are missing from the Cost
Impact section of the proposed rule.
     The established replacement program (useful service life)
of the life-limited slides and slide rafts is 15 years.
     There have been no reports of airplanes tipping back
beyond the certified sill height.
     The exit slides and slide-rafts on the opposite side of
the airplane would remain within the certified sill heights and
corresponding sliding angles due to the roll of the airplane associated
with the extreme tip-back condition. The existing slides are not too
short to reach the ground (as stated in the proposed rule).
     The slide and slide-raft manufacturer will likely have
trouble producing the number of slides and slide-raft units necessary
to modify every affected airplane in the worldwide fleet.
     We need to take into consideration low-cycle, high-hour
operations.
    We partially agree with the commenters' statements. Given the
combination of an updated Cost Impact estimate for this supplemental
NPRM (see ``Request To Revise Cost Impact Section'' above), and the
risk of exposure to the situation addressed in this supplemental NPRM,
we acknowledge that there is merit in revising the compliance time. It
is our intent to allow operators to offset, partially, the costs
associated with the supplemental NPRM by integrating the compliance
time somewhat with the costs associated with normal slide replacement.
Therefore, we have changed paragraph (a) of this supplemental NPRM to
propose a compliance time of within 72 months after the effective date
of the AD.
    We have also considered the other reasons commenters gave for
extending the compliance time, as discussed below.
     We have determined that an interval based on the ``useful
service life'' of the slides, which is 15 years, would not address the
unsafe condition in a timely manner.
     We do not agree that having no reported incidents of
airplanes tipping back beyond the certified sill heights is sufficient
justification for extending the proposed compliance time. While the
specific condition addressed in this supplemental NPRM has not been
encountered in service, we have received reports of similar, but less
severe, accidents and incidents that could have been more severe given
slightly different conditions.
     We do not agree that the exit slides and slide-rafts on
the opposite side of the airplane would remain within the certified
sill heights and provide a means of safe exit. The gear failure may be
associated with or may have caused other damage that would not only
raise the exit heights on the far side of the airplane, but also could
render the exits on the near side of the airplane unsafe and/or
unusable.
     The slide manufacturer has indicated that it is prepared
to support operators with sufficient supplies of replacement slides and
slide-rafts for the worldwide fleet within the compliance time
specified in this supplemental NPRM.
    Therefore, although we have extended the compliance time for other
reasons, we do not agree that these comments give adequate
justification for extending the compliance time any further.

Requests To Withdraw Proposed Rule

    ANA, and ATA on behalf of its member American Airlines, suggest
that we withdraw the proposed rule because it represents a significant
cost and addresses a scenario that is a remote possibility and,
therefore, should not be considered an unsafe condition.
    American Airlines explains that, with one main landing gear out,
the engine would remain attached at ``very low speeds'' that are
associated with taxiing, and would not shear off due to the weight of
the airplane, as explained in the ``Discussion'' section of the
proposed rule. American Airlines also explains that the extreme tip-
back condition would occur only at extreme aft center-of-gravity (CG)
conditions and that there is a low probability of this scenario
resulting in a ``time limited'' (90-second) evacuation. American
Airlines further states that there is a low probability of encountering
the extreme tip-back position, based on no such occurrences having been
encountered over the course of the fleet's high number of flight
cycles.
    We do not agree with the commenters' requests to withdraw the
original NPRM. We consider this to be an unsafe condition for the
reasons already given in the original NPRM and for the following
reasons.
    While we have received information from the airplane manufacturer
that indicates that engines could not necessarily shear off the
airplane at speeds experienced during taxi, takeoff, landing, or even
under some emergency landing situations, further information from the
manufacturer indicates that the CG associated with this condition is
well within the current accepted operating parameters and is not an
extreme condition. However, operators may consider CG restrictions and
may make proposals for alternative methods of compliance (AMOC)
consideration under the provisions of paragraph (d) of the supplemental
NPRM. We will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient
data are submitted to substantiate that the proposal would provide an
acceptable level of safety.
    In addition, although the specific conditions addressed in the
proposed rule have not been encountered in service, we have received
reports of partial tip-back during accidents/incidents that could have
resulted in

extreme tip-back given slightly different conditions, making this type
of event foreseeable. During at least one of these partial tip-back
events, the slides were deployed to facilitate evacuation. We do not
agree that the low probability of encountering such a foreseeable event
is justification to withdraw the original NPRM.

Request To Limit the Applicability of the Original NPRM

    UPS and ABX Air request that we revise the applicability of the
original NPRM. UPS requests that we remove certain Model 767-300F
series airplanes from the applicability of the proposed rule because
they have a different egress system. ABX Air requests that the
applicability of the proposed rule be limited to those airplanes that
are required to be equipped with the affected escape slides. For
example, the Model 767-300F (freighter) and Model 767-200 or 767-300
series airplanes that have been modified from a passenger configuration
to a cargo configuration are not subject to the unsafe condition
addressed by the proposed rule.
    We agree that airplanes that are not required to be equipped with
slides and slide-rafts are not subject to this unsafe condition. The
applicability statement of the original NPRM currently includes only
Model 767-200 and 767-300 series airplanes and does not include Model
767-300F series airplanes; therefore, no change to the supplemental
NPRM is necessary to exclude these airplanes from the applicability.
However, we have revised the applicability statement of the
supplemental NPRM to state that only Boeing Model 767-200 and -300
series airplanes that are equipped with door-mounted escape slide
systems are affected.

Request To Remove Paragraph (b) of the Original NPRM

    ABX Air recommends that we remove paragraph (b) of the original
NPRM because the second sentence in the proposed rule, ``Compliance:
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously,'' already gives
operators credit for accomplishing the actions before the effective
date of the AD.
    We agree with the request to remove paragraph (b) of the original
NPRM. Paragraph (b) was intended to give operators credit for
accomplishing actions in accordance with an earlier version of the
referenced service bulletin. However, in this case, there is no earlier
version of the service bulletin, and paragraph (b) was included
inadvertently in the original NPRM. We have revised the supplemental
NPRM accordingly.

Removal of Table 1 of the Original NPRM

    We have removed Table 1 of the original NPRM. That table contains
information about specific replacement procedures in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-25-0266 that are necessary for each airplane
group. We find that information is readily available in any revision of
the service bulletin and therefore not necessary to include in the
supplemental NPRM.

Conclusion

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Cost Impact

    There are approximately 745 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 261 airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected by this supplemental NPRM. The work hours and
required parts per airplane vary according to the configuration group
to which the affected airplane belongs. The average labor rate is $80
per work hour. The ``Cost Impact Per Airplane Configuration Group''
table shows the estimated costs.

                                                      Cost Impact per Airplane Configuration Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               U.S.-                                                                      Fleet cost, by
              Airplane configuration group                  registered      Work hours       Kit cost       Slide cost       Cost per      configuration
                                                             airplanes                                                       airplane          group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................             208               6          $1,236        $174,400        $176,116     $36,632,128
2.......................................................              12              12           2,472         354,264         357,696       4,292,352
3.......................................................              41              11          98,858         174,400         274,138      11,239,658
4.......................................................               0              11          34,012         174,400         209,292               0
5.......................................................               0              17          35,248         354,264         390,872               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the figures in the ``Cost Impact Per Airplane
Configuration Group'' table, the cost impact of this supplemental NPRM
on U.S. operators is estimated to be $52,164,138.
    The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements
of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions
in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures
discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to
perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures
typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to
gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other
administrative actions.

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 Impact

    The regulations proposed herein 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that 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) if promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ``ADDRESSES.''

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:

Boeing: Docket 2001-NM-237-AD.

    Applicability: Model 767-200 and -300 series airplanes, line
numbers 1 through 793 inclusive, certificated in any category;
equipped with door-mounted escape slide systems.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
    To prevent the escape slides and slide-rafts of the forward and
mid-cabin entry and service doors from being too steep for
evacuation in the event that the airplane rotates onto the aft
fuselage into the extreme tip-back condition, accomplish the
following:

Replacement of Slide-Rafts

    (a) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the applicable slide-rafts at the applicable door or doors,
and do all other applicable actions including, but not limited to,
changing the latches, and replacing or modifying the counterbalance
assemblies, by accomplishing all applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-25A0266,
Revision 2, dated September 27, 2007.

Modification of the Firing Cable

    (b) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
general visual inspection of the slide-raft(s) to determine if
supplier part number (P/N) 5A3294-1, 5A3294-2, 5A3295-1, or 5A3295-3
is installed (Boeing P/N S416T214-3, S416T214-4, S416T214-2, and
S416T214-1, respectively). Do the inspection in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
25A0395, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2007. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
P/N of the slide-raft can be conclusively determined from that
review.
    (1) If no affected P/N is installed, no further action is
required by this paragraph.
    (2) If any affected P/N is installed, before further flight,
lengthen the firing cable and test the valve of the inflation
trigger system of the escape slide-raft in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
25A0395, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2007.

    Note 1: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-25A0395, Revision 1,
refers to Goodrich Service Bulletin 5A3294/5A3295-25-362, dated July
25, 2006, as an additional source of service information for
lengthening the firing cable and testing the valve of the inflation
trigger system of the escape slide-raft.

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

    (c) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service bulletins listed in Table 1 of this AD
are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
this AD.

                                Table 1.--Previous Revisions of Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Boeing Alert Service Bulletin               Revision level                           Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
767-25A0266..............................  1...........................  December 4, 2006.
767-25A0395..............................  Original....................  August 31, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (d)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 5, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-13579 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54774-54775]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of New Approval of Information Collection: Neighborhood
Environmental Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to undertake an information
collection.
    The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information was published on
June 12, 2014, vol. 79, no. 113, pages 33797-33798. The purpose of this
research is to conduct a nation-wide survey to update the scientific
evidence of the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its
effects on communities around airports.
    There were seven responses to the 60-day Federal Register Notice.
The notice received comments from the Airlines for America (A4A),
Village of Schaumburg, Illinois residents, City of Wood Dale Illinois
residents, and several other private citizens representing themselves.
    The notice received several positive comments stating that this
survey is ``absolutely necessary to update relationship between
aircraft noise exposure and its effect on communities around United
State airports.'' There were clarifying questions on survey background
in general, questionnaire content, method of airport selection and
participants' selection.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 14, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX (to be determined).
    Title: Neighborhood Environmental Survey.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection of information.
    Type of Review: Clearance of a new information collection.
    Background: This Neighborhood Environmental Survey is necessary to
update the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effect
on communities around United States civilian airports. This survey will
collect data on residents' annoyance from a representative sample of
households surrounding airports chosen from a representative sample,
and relate the annoyance level to the noise exposure for that address.
The FAA will use the information from this collection to derive the
empirical data to support potential updates to or validation of the
national aviation noise policy.
    Respondents: 12,147 respondents affected by airport noise.
    Frequency: One time per respondent.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Five minutes for a mail
survey, twenty minutes for a telephone survey for selected respondents.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,544 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk
Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-21795 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P