[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84204-84206]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0468; Product Identifier 2018-SW-046-AD; Amendment
39-21365; AD 2020-26-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Leonardo S.p.a. (Leonardo) Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. This
AD requires revising the existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) for
your helicopter and installing a placard to prohibit intentional entry
into autorotation. This AD would also allow replacement of an affected
fuel control unit (FCU) as an optional terminating action for the RFM
revision and placard installation. This AD was prompted by reports that
certain FCUs may not have been calibrated to specification during
overhaul. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 1, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of February 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of
Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0468.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0468 or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any service information that is
incorporated by reference, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is 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: Mitch Soth, Flight Test Engineer,
Southwest Section, Flight Test Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Leonardo Model A119
and AW119 MKII helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on June 11, 2020 (85 FR 35602). The NPRM proposed to require revising
the Limitations Section of the existing RFM for your helicopter and
installing a placard to prohibit intentional entry into autorotation.
The NPRM also proposed to allow replacing affected FCUs with non-
affected FCUs as an optional terminating action for the RFM revision
and placard installation. The proposed requirements were intended to
address certain FCUs that may not have been calibrated to specification
during overhaul, which can lead to N1 fluctuations, hung engine starts,
and the inability to recover power during autorotation training, and
possibly result in reduced control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2018-0124, dated June 5, 2018,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for all Leonardo
Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. EASA advises that certain FCUs
may not have been calibrated to specification during overhaul, and that
this condition, if not corrected, can lead to N1 fluctuations, hung
engine starts, and the inability to recover power during autorotation
training, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. To
address this unsafe condition, the EASA AD requires amendment of the
applicable RFM and installation of a placard to prohibit intentional
entry into autorotation. The EASA AD also allows removal of the RFM
limitation and placard after replacement of an affected FCU.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule, but the FAA did not receive any comments on
the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Leonardo has issued Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin 119-089, Revision A, dated June 5, 2018. This service
information describes procedures for revising the RFM and installing a
placard in the cockpit.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 64 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD.
    Revising the existing RFM for your helicopter and installing a
placard takes about 2 work-hours and parts cost about $50, for an
estimated cost of $220 per helicopter and $14,080 for the U.S. fleet.
    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable it to
provide cost estimates for the optional terminating action 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.
    The FAA is 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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2020-26-10 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21365; Docket No. FAA-2020-
0468; Product Identifier 2018-SW-046-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February 1,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Leonardo S.p.a. Model A119 and AW119 MKII
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 1100, Placards and
markings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that certain fuel control units
(FCU) may not have been calibrated to specification during overhaul.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address certain FCUs that may not have
been calibrated to specification during overhaul. This condition, if
not corrected, can lead to N1 fluctuations, hung engine starts, and
the inability to recover power during autorotation training,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this AD apply.
    (1) An affected FCU is one that is identified in section 1.A.,
``Effectivity,'' of Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin 119-089, Revision A, dated June 5, 2018.
    (2) Group 1 helicopters are those that have an affected FCU
installed.
    (3) Group 2 helicopters are those that do not have an affected
FCU installed.

(h) Required Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) Amendment

    For Group 1 helicopters: Before further flight involving
intentional autorotation, or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, revise the Limitations Section
of the existing RFM for your helicopter in accordance with paragraph
4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Leonardo Helicopters
Emergency Alert Service Bulletin 119-089, Revision A, dated June 5,
2018.

(i) Required Placard Installation

    For Group 1 helicopters: Concurrently with the RFM amendment
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, install a placard in the
cockpit in accordance with paragraph 3. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin 119-089, Revision A, dated June 5, 2018.

(j) Optional Terminating Action

    For Group 1 helicopters: Replacing the affected FCU with a non-
affected FCU allows the amendment to be removed from the existing
RFM for your helicopter and the placard to be removed from the
helicopter.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) For Group 1 helicopters: Do not install an affected FCU on
any helicopter after replacement with a non-affected FCU.
    (2) For Group 2 helicopters: Do not install an affected FCU on
any helicopter after the effective date of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Mitch Soth, Flight
Test Engineer, Southwest Section, Flight Test Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, notify your
principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or certificate holding
district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2018-
0124, dated June 5, 2018. This EASA AD may be found in the AD docket
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0468.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) Leonardo Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin 119-
089, Revision A, dated June 5, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 9, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-28383 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/24/2008 02:58 PM

To

"Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johansson, Robert" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Daniels, Jarad" <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Grahame, Thomas" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Baer, Mitchell" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Energy EO 13211 and OMB Guidance

Thank you all  --

The EO is attached.

OMB Guidance for Implementing the EO:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-27.html

heidi

From: King, Heidi R.

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:11 PM

To: Fraas, Arthur G.; Johansson, Robert; 'Daniels, Jarad'; <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Grahame, Thomas'; 'Baer, Mitchell'<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: We're ready to get started


\47\ See http://regulations.gov, Docket no. NHTSA-2007-28793-
0020.
    \48\ Regarding ABA's ``voluntary retrofit requirement,'' ABA's
paper appears to suggest that NHTSA should not require motorcoaches
currently in use to be retrofitted. The paper appears to be saying
the decision to retrofit a bus should be voluntary on the part of
industry, and operators that decide to install belts--after having
considered the structural soundness of the bus, the availability of
kits, and the cost of retrofitting--should be free to decide to
install 2 point or 3 point belts. The paper also states that ``a
voluntary retrofit standard can provide guidance with regard to
requisite performance levels'' and that ``any retrofit performance
standard must allow for either 2 or 3 point belts * * * .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ABA estimated that installation costs for retrofitting seat
belts would range from $6,000 per vehicle for lap belts, to upwards of
$60,000 per vehicle for lap/shoulder belts. The ABA reported that
approximately 79 percent of the motorcoach carriers are small
businesses operating fewer than 10 motorcoaches (with an average fleet
size of 3 motorcoaches). Hence, we expect that motorcoach for-hire
operators, many of which are small businesses, and/or operate the more
structurally challenged motorcoaches, would bear the greatest impact by
a seat belt retrofit requirement.
    In September 2009, Greyhound Lines, Inc. (Greyhound) submitted
independent comments on retrofitting seat belts on motorcoaches that
are already in service, as well as provided their support for seat
belts on newly manufactured motorcoaches.\49\ Greyhound agreed with the
ABA that any seat belt retrofitting should occur on a voluntary basis
to ease the cost burden on the small business operators. However, it
added that if NHTSA were to adopt a retrofit requirement, that
requirement should exclusively require lap/shoulder belts and should
establish a future date by which all motorcoaches operating in the U.S.
must have seat belts installed that meet the new standards. Greyhound
supported its view for retrofitting lap/shoulder belts by noting that
the agency sled test research indicated that dummies restrained by lap
belts generally exhibited more severe head and neck injuries than the
unbelted dummies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See http://regulations.gov, Docket no. NHTSA-2007-28793-
0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the agency's feasibility, cost, and small business concerns,
and our knowledge that motorcoach structures can vary in construction
and materials, we are seeking public comment in a number of areas to
improve our understanding of the impacts of implementing a seat belt
retrofit requirement on existing motorcoaches. We also include
questions on enforceability since we are working closely with FMCSA to
understand how a retrofit requirement might be enforced during periodic
or routine commercial vehicle safety inspections, including those of
motorcoaches crossing into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico.
Motorcoach Retrofit Requirements
    1. Please explain why the agency should (or should not) consider a
retrofit seat belt requirement for existing motorcoaches. Please
discuss:
    a. Should NHTSA consider developing technical standards for
voluntarily retrofitting motorcoach passenger seats with seat belts?
    b. In the absence of a requirement, how would the motorcoach
industry self-regulate to facilitate the voluntary installation of
belts on existing buses that are structurally sound enough to support
the enhancements?
    c. Are there other voluntary improvements that motorcoach operators
would consider in improving occupant crash protection?
    2. If a seat belt retrofit requirement were issued for existing
motorcoaches, should operators be permitted to install lap belts
instead of only lap/shoulder belts (i.e., the ABA approach)? As
explained above, ABA stated that they believe the amount of rebuilding
necessary for motorcoaches that are already in service to be
retrofitted with lap/shoulder belts would be cost prohibitive for many
of the smaller motorcoach operating businesses, while lap belts could
be integrated into existing seats with less difficulty and cost. ABA
informed the agency that lap belts, in conjunction with ``energy
absorbing seats and compartmentalization of the seating configuration''
would provide significant safety benefits with regard to ejection
mitigation and restricting occupant movement during a crash. As noted
above, Greyhound suggested that if NHTSA were to adopt a retrofit
requirement, that requirement should exclusively require lap/shoulder
belts.
    In our test program, the lap belted dummies had elevated head and
neck injury measures in the test conditions evaluated, compared to
dummies restrained by lap/shoulder belts. Additionally, the motorcoach
seats did not demonstrate ``energy absorption'' or
``compartmentalization'' characteristics during our tests.
    However, lap belts could be effective in mitigating ejections in
motorcoach rollover crashes, and some motorcoaches already on the road
may have been originally manufactured such that a lap belt could be
readily retrofitted to the seat, while a lap/shoulder belt could not be
without significant structural modification and cost. NHTSA believes
that lap/shoulder belts would provide superior protection compared to
lap belts and should be required for new motorcoaches. However,
considering the costs and other impacts on small businesses of
retrofitting seat belts on used buses and the effectiveness of lap
belts in preventing occupant ejection in rollover crashes, we ask for
comments on whether requiring operators to install lap/shoulder belts
would be appropriate if it is possible to retrofit lap belts to lap
belt-ready seats. Comments are

requested on the associated safety implications.
    3. What are the appropriate performance requirements for a retrofit
lap belt or lap/shoulder belt approach? How would the strength of the
anchorages be evaluated to determine if the performance requirements
were met?
    4. What lead time and phase-in issues should the agency consider
for a retrofit requirement, and why?
    a. How long would it take (in weeks) to retrofit a motorcoach with
seat belts?
    b. Should special lead-time and phase-in consideration be given for
small businesses?
    c. Would a retrofit requirement be more practicable if it were
limited to only a portion of the fleet of motorcoaches currently in
use? For example, should a retrofit requirement be applied only to
vehicles manufactured less than five years prior to the effective date
of the final rule? The appeal of doing so is that it might limit the
requirement to motorcoaches encountering only five years worth of wear
and tear. Further, it would apply a retrofit belt requirement to
motorcoaches with the greatest amount of useable life ahead of them, as
compared to the rest of the on-road motorcoach fleet. In addition,
bounding the time frame would limit the impact of a retrofit
requirement on small businesses, since such businesses are more likely
to purchase used motorcoaches than new ones, and may be more likely
than not to purchase or own motorcoaches that were produced prior to
the proposed time frame of this example. Therefore, the agency is
seeking information on the age of motorcoaches in the fleets owned by
small businesses.
    d. Comments are requested on other options the agency could take to
identify portions of the on-road fleet to which a retrofit requirement
should apply. Are there existing seats on motorcoaches that are ``lap-
belt ready,'' to which a lap belt can be attached that require no
modification to the vehicle structure? How would the agency distinguish
those seats from seats that are not seat-belt ready?
    5. What are the risks to vehicle occupants in rollover and non-
rollover crashes in the event of an improper retrofit installation?
Motorcoach Seat Anchorages
    6. Do all motorcoach models share a common seat anchorage design?
Please specify those that share a common design, by year and model.
    7. Will any of the existing seat anchorages meet the FMVSS No. 210
strength requirements? Please specify which models, by year of
manufacture.
    8. What are the minimum steps necessary to retrofit a motorcoach
with seat belts that comply with FMVSS No. 210? What structural changes
would be necessary to make the seat anchorages accommodate the
additional strength required for the addition of seat belts? Should
FMVSS No. 210 strength requirements be reduced in stringency for
retrofitted seat belts? What should those requirements be and should
they apply to the retrofitted system?
    9. We note that sometimes vehicle and equipment manufacturers will
make retrofit kits available to consumers for the purpose of
retrofitting existing vehicles with new equipment. Is it practical for
motorcoach manufacturers to provide upgrade kits for each model with
appropriate instructions so that installers can make the modifications?
Please explain why or why not.
Cost to Retrofit
    10. What is the total cost of retrofitting a motorcoach with seat
belts? Please also provide a break-down of the following components:
    a. Cost to modify the motorcoach structure to meet the FMVSS No.
210 seat anchorage requirements. Please specify by make/model of the
existing motorcoach.
    b. Cost to modify existing seat structures to accommodate seat
belts. Please specify in terms of labor-hours, materials, and
additional weight of the modifications by model and year of
manufacture.
    c. Cost difference between installing lap belts versus lap/shoulder
belts.
    d. Cost implications for taking a motorcoach out of service to be
retrofitted (both for small and large businesses).
    e. Cost of attaching lap belts to ``seat-belt ready'' seats (seats
that can withstand the load of the occupant without structural
modifications to the seat or vehicle).
    f. Cost impacts from increased fuel usage for retrofitting lap
belts or lap/shoulder belts on motorcoaches with and without seat-belt
ready seats.
    11. In the event that the motorcoach structure is insufficient as
manufactured or has deteriorated to the extent that it cannot be
modified to withstand the additional loads imposed by seat belts, what
is the economic effect of the loss of that bus from the operator's
fleet?
Enforcement of Retrofit Requirements
    12. How can we assure that the modifications performed would meet
FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 requirements?
    13. Would it be reasonable to require that each motorcoach be
evaluated for structural integrity prior to performing modifications
necessary for the installation of seat belts? Who would perform the
structural evaluation? Would this evaluation in itself deteriorate the
structural integrity?
    14. Would it be reasonable to assess compliance with a retrofit
requirement by means of only visually inspecting the vehicle? In what
ways could we reasonably and effectively assess compliance with
retrofit requirement?

d. School Buses

    This rulemaking action should not be understood to suggest that we
are considering proposing lap/shoulder belts in large school buses.
NHTSA has recently decided against requiring seat belts on large school
buses (over 4,536 kg (10,000 (lb)) GVWR. See 73 FR 62744, October 21,
2008, supra.
    As discussed in the October 21, 2008 final rule, supra, requiring
installation of seat belts on large school buses would increase school
bus costs that the purchaser would have to bear. Those costs could
result in fewer school buses used to transport children and more
students having to use alternative, less safe means to get to school.
Because data indicate that the safety need for seat belts on large
school buses is low, and because the net effect on safety could be
negative if the costs of purchasing and maintaining the seat belts and
ensuring their correct use results in non-implementation or reduced
efficacy of other pupil transportation programs that affect child
safety, NHTSA does not believe that passenger seat belts should be
required on large school buses. Instead, the agency believes that local
school transportation planners should be given the ability to analyze
the transportation risks particular to their needs, and to decide
whether they wish to incur the cost of purchasing large school buses
equipped with passenger seat belts.

VIII. Lead Time

    If the proposed changes in this NPRM were made final, NHTSA
proposes a three year lead time for new bus manufacturers to meet the
new motorcoach seat belt requirements. We believe three years are
necessary for the motorcoaches since some design, testing, and
development will be necessary to certify compliance to the new
requirements. NHTSA proposes that optional early compliance be
permitted.
    With regard to a possible retrofit requirement, we request comments
on the approach of NHTSA's requiring the

belts be retrofitted on subject vehicles (e.g., vehicles that are
manufactured five or fewer years prior to the compliance date of the
final rule) by a set future date (e.g., three years after the
compliance date of the final rule).
    To illustrate such an approach, assume a final rule is published in
2011. Such an approach could require new motorcoaches manufactured on
or after January 1, 2015 (the January 1 of the next year, three years
after publication of the final rule; the ``compliance date'' of the
final rule) to meet the requirements for new motorcoaches. The approach
would require motorcoaches manufactured on or after January 1, 2010 to
be retrofitted with seat belts, and meet the amendments for retrofitted
buses, by January 1, 2018. Thus, as of January 1, 2018, all
motorcoaches built after January 1, 2010 would have restraints.

IX. Overview of Costs and Benefits

    Based on a 10 year average, there were 18.6 fatalities and 7,887
injuries to motorcoach occupants. We estimate that installing lap/
shoulder seat belts on new motorcoaches would save 1-8 lives and
prevent 144-794 injuries, depending upon the usage of lap/shoulder
belts in motorcoaches.\50\ The cost of adding lap/shoulder belts and
making structural changes to the motorcoach floor would be
approximately $12,900 per vehicle, with the total cost being $25.8
million for the 2,000 motorcoaches sold per year. Lifetime fuel costs
due to an increased weight of the motorcoach would be an additional
cost (estimated below). The cost per equivalent life saved is estimated
to be $1.3 million to $9.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The PRIA assumes that the seat belt use rate on
motorcoaches would be between 15 percent and the percent use in
passenger vehicles, which was 83 percent in 2008. These annual
benefits would accrue when all motorcoaches in the fleet have lap/
shoulder belts.

                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities................................  1 to 8.
AIS 1 injuries (Minor)....................  92 to 506.
AIS 2-5 (Moderate to Severe)..............  52 to 288.
                                           -----------------------------
    Total Non-fatal Injuries..............  144 to 794.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Costs
                            [2008 Economics]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Vehicle............................  $12,900.
Total Fleet............................  $25.8 million.
Fuel Costs per Vehicle @ 3%............  $1,085 to $1,812.
Fuel Costs per Vehicle @ 7%............  $800 to $1,336.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Cost Per Equivalent Life Saved
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
15% Belt usage.......................  $7.4 to $9.9 mill.
83% Belt usage.......................  $1.3 to $1.8 mill.
Breakeven Point in belt usage........  24%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of installing lap/shoulder belts on new motorcoaches is
estimated as follows. The incremental cost of adding passenger seats
with lap/shoulder belts on a 54 passenger motorcoach is approximately
$9,900. The cost to change the seat anchorages and to reinforce the
floor is approximately $3,000. We estimate that total cost of adding
belts, changing the anchorages and reinforcing the floor is
approximately $12,900. The agency has also estimated increased costs in
fuel usage. The increased fuel costs depend on added weight (estimated
to be 161 lbs or 269 lbs \51\) and the discount rate used. NHTSA
estimates the increased costs in fuel usage for added weight and
discounts the additional fuel used over the lifetime of the motorcoach
using a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate. See the PRIA for more
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See PRIA for this NPRM. This estimate is based on
preliminary results from a NHTSA contractor conducting cost/weight
teardown studies of motorcoach seats. The weight added by 3-point
lap/shoulder belts ranged from 5.96 to 9.95 pounds per 2-person
seat. This is the weight only of the seat belt assembly itself and
does not include changing the design of the seat, reinforcing the
floor, walls or other areas of the motorcoach. The final cost and
weight results from the study will be placed in the docket for this
NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency has examined an alternative of adding a lap belt only as
a substitute for lap/shoulder belts on motorcoaches. Real world data on
light vehicles and sled testing with motorcoach seats both show that
lap/shoulder belts are more effective than lap belts in reducing
injuries and fatalities. Given the cost estimates and effectiveness
estimates assumed, the breakeven point for lap belt use is 17 percent
and for lap/shoulder belt use is 24 percent (a difference of 7
percentage points). The agency has found that lap/shoulder belt usage
is 10 percentage points higher than lap belt usage in the rear seat of
passenger cars. Assuming that this relationship would hold for
motorcoaches, if lap/shoulder belt usage is 10 percentage points higher
than lap belt usage, lap/shoulder belts would be more cost effective
than lap belts. See the PRIA for more information.
    We are not proposing at this time to require that used buses be
retrofitted with the lap/shoulder belt system. The service life of a
motorcoach can be 20 years or longer. We estimate that the cost of
retrofitting can vary substantially. We estimate it could cost between
$6,000 \52\-$34,000 per vehicle to retrofit the vehicle with lap belts
and with sufficient structure to meet today's proposal. We also
estimate it could cost $40,000 per vehicle to retrofit it with lap/
shoulder belts and reinforced structure so as to meet FMVSS No. 210 to
support the load of belted occupants during a crash.\53\ The existing
fleet size is estimated to be 29,325 motorcoaches. Hence, the fleet
cost of retrofitting lap belts is estimated to range from $175,950,000
($6,000 x 29,325) to $997,050,000 ($34,000 x 29,325), while the fleet
cost of retrofitting lap/shoulder belts is estimated to be
$1,173,000,000 ($40,000 x 29,325). These costs do not include increased
remaining lifetime fuel costs incurred by adding weight to the
motorcoach. Weight would vary depending upon the needed structural
changes and lifetime fuel cost would vary depending upon the age of
motorcoaches that would be retrofitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ This assumes that the motorcoach structure is lap belt-
ready, and can accommodate the loads set forth in this proposal.
    \53\ As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, NHTSA has
determined that the FMVSS No. 210 loads that this NPRM proposes for
new motorcoach belt anchorages appear to be more stringent than ECE
R.80 loads and more representative of the imparted loads measured at
the seat belt anchorages in a motorcoach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Retrofitting used motorcoaches may not be structurally viable for
many motorcoaches and may not be economically feasible for many
motorcoach for-hire operators, many of which are small businesses.
However, we have included a comprehensive set of questions about
retrofit in this preamble. The answers to those questions will aid us
in determining whether to issue a separate supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to
require retrofit. If we issue such an SNPRM, we will assess the impact
of the proposed rule on small entities in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and prepare and
publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis if appropriate.

X. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The agency has considered the impact of this rulemaking action
under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) and
determined that it is economically ``significant,'' and also a matter
of Congressional and public interest. Accordingly, the action was
reviewed

under the Executive Order. NHTSA has prepared a PRIA for this NPRM.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ NHTSA's PRIA is available in the docket for this NPRM and
may be obtained by downloading it or by contacting Docket Management
at the address or telephone number provided at the beginning of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM proposes: (1) To define the types of buses to which this
NPRM would apply (i.e., to provide a definition of ``motorcoach''); (2)
to require lap/shoulder belts for all passenger seating positions in
motorcoaches; and (3) to require lap/shoulder belts for the driver's
position on motorcoaches and on large school buses.
    We estimate that installing lap/shoulder seat belts on new
motorcoaches would save 1-8 lives and prevent 144-794 injuries. The
total cost of adding seat belts and making structural changes to the
motorcoach floor, and of lifetime fuel costs, would be approximately
$27.4 million to $29.4 million. The cost per equivalent life saved is
estimated to be $1.3 million to $9.9 million. The benefits, costs, and
other impacts of this rulemaking are discussed at length in the PRIA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to 13 CFR 121.201, the Small
Business Administration's size standards regulations used to define
small business concerns, motorcoach manufacturers would fall under
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) No. 336111,
Automobile Manufacturing, which has a size standard of 1,000 employees
or fewer. Using the size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer, NHTSA
estimates that there are 5 large motorcoach manufacturers in the United
States.
    With regard to the amendments of a final rule applying to new motor
vehicles, I hereby certify that if made final, this proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. None of the U.S. motorcoach manufacturers and motorcoach seat
manufacturers is a small business.
    With regard to a retrofit requirement applying to a population of
on-road vehicles, NHTSA is seeking information on the potential effects
of a retrofit requirement on small businesses, small organizations, and
small Government jurisdictions. This preamble and the PRIA for this
NPRM have questions that would assist the agency in analyzing the
potential impacts of a retrofit requirement on small businesses. An
estimated 78.8 percent of the 3,137 motorcoach carriers in the United
States in 2007 (or about 2,470 carriers) have less than 10 motorcoaches
in their fleet, and an average of three motorcoaches and eleven
employees. The documents request comments on the merits of applying a
retrofit requirement to a limited population of on-road vehicles to
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities, such as
applying a retrofit requirement to only those motorcoaches manufactured
after 2010, and/or only to motorcoaches that have seat-belt ready
passenger seats, etc., and providing extra lead time for the vehicles
to be retrofitted. Responses to those questions will assist the agency
in deciding whether to proceed with a proposal to require on-road
motorcoaches to be retrofitted with seat belts.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments, or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the proposed rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant either consultation with State and
local officials or preparation of a federalism summary impact
statement. The proposed rule would not have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and the
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision:

    When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this
chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe
or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if
the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter.

49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1).

    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some
instances, of implied preemption of State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law.
That possibility is dependent upon there being an actual conflict
between a FMVSS and a State requirement. If and when such a conflict
exists, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State
requirements unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529
U.S. 861 (2000), finding implied preemption of state tort law on the
basis of a conflict discerned by the court,\55\ not on the basis of an
intent to preempt asserted by the agency itself.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The conflict was discerned based upon the nature (e.g., the
language and structure of the regulatory text) and the safety-
related objectives of FMVSS requirements in question and the impact
of the State requirements on those objectives.
    \56\ Indeed, in the rulemaking that established the rule at
issue in this case, the agency did not assert preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has considered the nature (e.g., the language and structure
of the regulatory text) and purpose of today's proposed rule and does
not foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with
it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of
state law, including state tort law.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this NPRM for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation
of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of
the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal

agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This
rulemaking would not establish any new information collection
requirements.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' After carefully reviewing the available information,
including standards from the European Union, Australia and Japan, NHTSA
has determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards that we
will be incorporating into this rulemaking. The reasons the agency has
decided against adopting the international regulations regarding the
performance of seat belt anchorages were discussed earlier in this
preamble.

Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows.
    The issue of preemption is discussed above in connection with E.O.
13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that
individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other
administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This NPRM would not
result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This rulemaking is not subject to
the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as
defined in E.O. 12866. However, as previously explained, because
children make up as much as 27 percent of motorcoach ridership, this
NPRM, if made final, should have a beneficial safety effect on them.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language.
Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

XI. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21).
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length
of the attachments.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by
logging onto the Docket Management System website at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon

receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should
submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential
business information, to the docket at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR Part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after
that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider
in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will
consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking
action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by the docket at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated
above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the
Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file
comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, and Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Part 571 as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

    2. Section 571.3 is amended by adding the definition ``Motorcoach''
in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Motorcoach means a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
11,793 kilograms (26,000 pounds) or greater, 16 or more designated
seating positions (including the driver), and at least 2 rows of
passenger seats, rearward of the driver's seating position, that are
forward-facing or can convert to forward-facing without the use of
tools. Motorcoach includes buses sold for intercity, tour, and commuter
bus service, but does not include a school bus, or an urban transit bus
sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation along a
fixed route with frequent stops.
* * * * *
    3. Section 571.208 is amended by redesignating the existing
regulatory text of S<IP_ADDRESS> as paragraph (a), adding paragraphs (b) and
(c), and adding S7.1.6, to read as follows:

Sec.  571.208  Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS>
    (a) * * *
    (b) Each school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) and each motorcoach, manufactured on or after
[date 3 years after publication date of rule], must be equipped with a
Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position.
The seat belt assembly must comply with FMVSS No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209)
and with S7.1 and S7.2 of this standard. The pelvic portion of a dual
retractor Type 2 belt assembly installed in compliance with this
requirement must include either an emergency locking retractor or an
automatic locking retractor. If a seat belt assembly installed in
compliance with this requirement includes an automatic locking
retractor for the lap belt portion, that seat belt assembly must comply
with paragraphs (a) through (c) of S<IP_ADDRESS> of this standard. If a seat
belt assembly installed in compliance with this requirement
incorporates any webbing tension-relieving device, the vehicle owner's
manual must include the information specified in S7.4.2(b) of this
standard for the tension-relieving device, and the vehicle must comply
with S7.4.2(c) of this standard.
    (c) Motorcoaches manufactured on or after [date 3 years after
publication date of rule] must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt
assembly that is attached to the seat structure at every designated
seating position for passengers other than a side-facing position.
Side-facing designated seating positions must be equipped, at the
manufacturer's option, with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.
Seats with no other seats behind them, no wheelchair positions behind
them, or side emergency doors behind them are excluded from the
requirement that the seat belt anchorages must be attached to the seat
structure. Seat belt assemblies at all designated seating positions for
passengers must comply with paragraphs (a) through (c) of S<IP_ADDRESS>,
S7.1.6 and S7.2 of this standard.
* * * * *
    S7.1.6 Motorcoach passenger seats. The seat belt assemblies on
motorcoach passenger seats will operate by means of any emergency-
locking retractor that conforms to 49 CFR 571.209 to restrain persons
whose dimensions range from those of a 50th percentile 6-year-old child
to those of a 95th percentile adult male. The seat belt assemblies will
operate in this manner with the seat back in any position.
* * * * *

    Issued on: August 12, 2010.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-20375 Filed 8-16-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9789-9791]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0602; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-061-AD;
Amendment 39-17338; AD 2013-03-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Schweizer Aircraft Corporation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the

Schweizer Aircraft Corporation (Schweizer) Model 269D and Model 269D
Configuration A helicopters. The type certificate for these models is
currently held by Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky). This AD
requires inspecting the aft fuselage assembly in the area around the
attachment point of the horizontal stabilizer, including the paint, for
a crack. This AD also requires inspecting the tailboom interior support
structure, and if necessary, installing an inspection panel kit in the
aft fuselage assembly, and installing doublers in the stabilizer
support brackets. This AD is prompted by reports of loose horizontal
stabilizers and cracks in the stabilizer support structure for the
extruded tailboom. The actions are intended to prevent separation of
the horizontal stabilizer from the helicopter and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective March 19, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of March 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a copy of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any incorporated-by-reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Kowalski, Aviation Safety
Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1600 Stewart Ave., suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 11, 2012, at 77 FR 34281, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Schweizer Model 269D
and Model 269D Configuration A helicopters, serial numbers 0001 to
0062A, with aft fuselage assembly part number (P/N) 269D3300-1
installed. That NPRM proposed to require inspecting the aft fuselage
assembly in the area around the attachment point of the horizontal
stabilizer, including the paint, for a crack. That AD also proposed
inspecting the tailboom interior support structure, and if necessary,
installing an inspection panel kit in the aft fuselage assembly, and
installing doublers in the stabilizer support brackets. The proposed
requirements were prompted by reports of loose horizontal stabilizers
and cracks in the support structure of the extruded tailboom. The
proposed requirements were intended to prevent separation of the
horizontal stabilizer from the helicopter and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (77 FR 34281, June 11,
2012).

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information

    We have reviewed Schweizer Service Bulletin DB-018.3, dated
December 13, 2007 (SB), which specifies inspecting for cracks in the
fuselage assemblies and installing an inspection panel kit and
stabilizer mount doublers. The Type Certificate for these helicopters
transferred from Schweizer to Sikorsky on September 26, 2011.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The Schweizer SB requires contacting the manufacturer if certain
damage is found for repair instructions. This AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 18 helicopters, and that the
average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based on these assessments, we
estimate the following costs:
     Daily visual inspection. This takes about 10 minutes for a
labor cost of $9. Assuming 365 daily inspections per year, the annual
labor cost per helicopter will be about $3,285. The annual cost for the
U.S. fleet will total $59,130.
     Internal inspection. This takes two work-hours for a labor
cost of $170. Assuming 10 inspections a year, the annual labor cost per
helicopter is $1,700.
     Install inspection panel. This takes 16 work-hours for a
labor cost of $1,360. Parts cost $150 for a cost per helicopter of
$1,510.
     Repair damaged longerons, tailboom tube collars, or
forward stabilizer bulkhead as needed. This takes 24 work-hours for a
labor cost of $2,040. Parts cost $38,000 for a cost per helicopter of
$40,040.
     Repair a crack in the aft fuselage assembly clip, aft
bulkhead, or adjacent skins. This takes 24 work-hours for a labor cost
of $2,040. Parts cost $120 for a cost per helicopter of $2,160.
     Repair interference between the rivet heads and skin. This
takes 10 work-hours for a labor cost of $850. No parts are needed.

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

    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 to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-03-04 SCHWEIZER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION HELICOPTERS: Amendment 39-
17338; Docket No. FAA-2012-0602; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-061-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Schweizer Aircraft Corporation (Schweizer)
Model 269D and Model 269D Configuration A helicopters, serial
numbers 0001 to 0062A, with aft fuselage assembly part number (P/N)
269D3300-1 installed, certificated in any category.
    Note to Applicability: The type certificate for these models is
currently held by Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as loose horizontal
stabilizers and cracks in the stabilizer support structure for the
extruded tailboom, which could result in separation of the
horizontal stabilizer from the helicopter and subsequent loss of
helicopter control.

 (c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 19, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has been
accomplished previously.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Before the first flight of each day, visually inspect the
aft fuselage assembly in the area around the attachment point of the
horizontal stabilizer, including the paint, for a crack. If there is
a crack, remove the horizontal stabilizer and perform an interior
inspection in accordance with Part II: Internal Inspection,
paragraphs b. and c., of Schweizer Service Bulletin DB-018.3, dated
December 13, 2007 (SB).
    (i) If there is a crack in the aft fuselage assembly clip, in
the aft bulkhead, or in adjacent skins, repair the crack.
Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 200 hours time-in-service
(TIS), remove the horizontal stabilizer and repeat the interior
inspection in accordance with Part II: Internal Inspection,
paragraphs b. and c., of the SB, or replace the aft fuselage
assembly, P/N 269D3300-1,with an airworthy aft fuselage assembly, P/
N 269D3300-35.
    (ii) If there is a crack in a longeron, tailboom tube collar or
a forward stabilizer bulkhead, replace the aft fuselage assembly
with an airworthy aft fuselage assembly, P/N 269D3300-35.
    (2) Within 100 hours TIS or three months, whichever occurs
first:
    (i) Remove the horizontal stabilizer, clean the horizontal
stabilizer mounting brackets, and inspect the mounting brackets for
wear greater than 0.002-inch deep. If the bracket wear exceeds
0.002-inch deep, replace the mounting bracket with an airworthy
mounting bracket.
    (ii) Modify the aft fuselage assembly by installing Inspection
Panel kit P/N SA-269DK-035.
    (iii) Install doublers on the forward side of each mounting
bracket in accordance with Part III-2, paragraphs e. through i., of
the SB.
    (iv) Inspect the horizontal stabilizer forward and aft spars for
wear in the mounting attachment areas. If the wear exceeds 0.002-
inch deep, replace the spar with an airworthy spar.
    (v) Inspect for rivet interference between the rivet heads and
skin on the top surface of the horizontal stabilizer and the
tailboom stiffening Web near Station 232.4. If interference exists,
replace with airworthy rivets.
    (vi) Install an airworthy horizontal stabilizer using 4 bolts,
P/N NAS1304-4, and 4 washers, P/N AN960KD416 or NAS1149D0463K.
    (3) Removing aft fuselage assembly, P/N 269D3300-1, and
replacing it with aft fuselage assembly, P/N 269D3300-35, is
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 provided that before operating the helicopter to a
location to perform the actions in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3)
of this AD, a daily, pre-flight visual inspection is accomplished in
accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, NY ACO, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD.
Send your proposal to: Stephen Kowalski, Aviation Safety Engineer,
New York Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 1600 Stewart Ave., suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302, Rotorcraft
tailboom.

(i) 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) Schweizer Service Bulletin DB-018.3, dated December 13,
2007.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Schweizer Aircraft Corporation service information
identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn:
Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main
Street, Stratford, CT 06614; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at http://www.sikorsky.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 Fort Worth, Texas, on January 29, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-02583 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27116]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0378]

Safety Zone; Annual Firework Events on the Colorado River,
Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker,
Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Avi
Resort and Casino Labor Day Fireworks on the Colorado River in
Laughlin, Nevada on Sunday, September 3, 2017. This safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, spectators,
official vessels of the event, and general users of the waterway. Our
regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River within the
San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for
this event. During the enforcement period, no spectators shall anchor,
block, loiter in, or impede the transit of official patrol vessels in
the regulated area without the approval of the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1124 will be enforced from 8 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on September 3, 2017, for Item 4 in Table 1 ot Sec.
165.1124.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
publication, call or email Lieutenant Robert Cole, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-
7656, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the regulations
in 33 CFR 165.1124 for a safety zone on the Colorado River in Laughlin,
Nevada for the Avi Resort and Casino Labor Day Fireworks in 33 CFR
165.1124, Table 1, Item 4 of that section from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m.
on September 3, 2017. This enforcement action is being taken to provide
for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks
event. Our regulation for annual fireworks events on the Colorado River
within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated
area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1124, a vessel
may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from
the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. Spectator
vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not
anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of participants or
official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or Local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1124 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative
determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full
duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice
to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor
to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: May 24, 2017.
J.R. Buzzella,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2017-12321 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 14796]
[DOCID:fr01ap09-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-863-000]

Smart Papers Holdings, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

March 25, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Smart Papers Holdings, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 14, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-7239 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29947-29948]
[DOCID:fr24my06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Ready for Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Prescriptions and Establishing a Revised Procedural
Schedule for Relicensing

May 18, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application and
applicant-prepared environmental assessment has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Applications: New Major Licenses.
    b. Project Nos.: 12606-000 and 2545-091.
    c. Date Filed: July 28, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Avista Corporation.

    e. Name of Projects: (1) Post Falls and (2) Spokane River
Development of the Spokane River.
    f. Location: Post Falls--on the Spokane River and Coeur d'Alene
Lake in portions of Kootenai and Benewah counties, Idaho. The project
occupies Federal lands under the supervision of the U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and may occupy lands under the supervision of the U.S.
Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    Spokane River Developments--on the Spokane River in portions of
Steven and Lincoln counties, Washington. No Federal lands are included.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Bruce F. Howard, License Manager, Avista
Corporation, 1411 East Mission, P.O. Box 3727, Spokane, Washington
99220-3727; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John S. Blair, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on
the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    k. This application has been accepted for filing.
    l. The Post falls hydroelectric development, has a seasonal storage
capacity consisting of the 40,402 acre Coeur d'Alene Lake with a usable
storage capacity of 223,100 acre-feet. The facility is composed of a
431-foot-long, 31-foot-high dam across the north channel of the Spokane
River, a 127-foot-long, 25-foot-high dam across the south channel, and
a 215-foot-long, 64-foot-high dam across the middle channel; six 56-
foot-long, 11.25-foot-diameter penstocks; and a 6-unit powerhouse
integral to the middle channel dam with a generator nameplate capacity
of 14.75 megawatts.
    The Spokane River Developments include four hydroelectric
developments (HED) with a total authorized capacity of 122.92 MW as
follows:
    (1) Upper Falls HED is a run-of-river facility consisting of a 366-
foot-long, 35.5-foot-high dam across the north channel of the Spokane
River; a 70-foot-long, 30-foot-high intake structure across the south
channel; an 800-acre-foot reservoir; a 350-foot-long, 18-foot-diameter
penstock; and a single-unit powerhouse with a generator nameplate
capacity of 10 MW.
    (2) Monroe Street HED is a run-of-river facility consisting of a
240-foot-long, 24-foot-high dam; a 30-acre-foot reservoir; a 332-foot-
long, 14-foot-diameter penstock; and an underground single-unit
powerhouse with a generator nameplate capacity of 14.82 MW.
    (3) Nine Mile HED is a run-of-river facility consisting of a 466-
foot-long, 58-foot-high dam; a 4,600 acre-foot reservoir; a 120-foot-
long, 5 foot-diameter diversion tunnel; and a 4-unit powerhouse with a
nameplate capacity of 26.4 MW.
    (4) Long Lake HED is a storage-type facility consisting of a 593-
foot-long, 213-foot-high main dam; a 247-foot-long, 108-foot-high
cutoff dam; a 105,080-acre-foot reservoir; four 236-foot-long, 16-foot-
diameter penstocks; and a 4-unit powerhouse with a nameplate capacity
of 71.7 MW.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room or may be viewed on its Web site:
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments or recommendations in accordance with
the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
386.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all comments and recommendations filed,
but only those who have filed a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of all filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule (supercedes Procedural Schedule notice dated
August 5, 2005) The application will be processed according to the
following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.
    Notice soliciting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions,
and prescriptions: May 18, 2006.
    Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
due: 60 days from issuance date of this notice.
    Reply comments on recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions due: 105 days from issuance date of this notice.
    Notice of availability of draft EIS: December 30, 2006.
    Notice of availability of final EIS: June 30, 2007.
    Ready for Commission's decision on the application: September 30,
2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7960 Filed 5-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P