UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD ( HSRB) JUNE 27 30, 2006 * PUBLIC MEETING Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Arlington, VA 22202 Insect Repellent Product Performance Testing Guidelines Written Comments The U. S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs requests that the HSRB review and comment on the draft " Product Performance of Skin Applied Repellents of Insects and Other Arthropods" Testing Guideline in order to determine what changes, if any, are necessary for the guideline to be made consistent with the requirements for protection of human research subjects set forth in 40 CFR part 26. Below is a list of questions that focus on these topics.

a. What actions should an investigator routinely take to minimize the risks to human subjects exposed during laboratory and field research on the efficacy of repellents?

Two risks are: ( 1) toxicity of repellent; and ( 2) bites from infected vectors ( usually only field studies).

1. Toxicity of the repellent chemical. The repellent chemical may pose limited toxicity to the research subject ( depending on chemical, dose, and formulation). To minimize the toxicity of the repellent chemical to the research subject, investigators should wash exposed skin that has been treated with repellent ( or a positive/ negative control) with a fragrance free soap and rinse with water/ isopropanol ( 35%) solution before and after treatment.

2. Bites from infected vectors. Bites from infected vectors are a concern in field locations where a repellent compound is being evaluated against vector flies and other arthropods. For studies that use landing/ biting counts, it may be feasible to recruit local subjects who are naturally exposed to such vectors on a daily basis anyway. It is prudent to have a helper collect flies landing on the test subject before vectors have an opportunity to bite. Depending on the nature of the study, subjects may require follow up monitoring for disease afterwards.

b. What types of toxicity data should be routinely generated before an investigator conducts repellent efficacy testing on human subjects with a new product?

Standard 6 pack toxicology. c. In private and university research laboratories, investigators themselves have sometimes served as research subjects when assessing chemicals for insect repellent activity. What scientific and ethical issues would such a practice raise? Under what conditions, if any, would such a practice be acceptable?

The investigator serving as the only research subject raises both ethical and scientific red flags. It would be difficult to monitor a study where s/ he is the research subject. Even the best researcher may unintentional introduce bias while serving as his/ her only research subject. With the understanding that there may be circumstances where this is warranted and acceptable, it should be a method of last resort. For instance, such a practice may be the only way that a chemical can be assessed to obtain preliminary data to support a research proposal for future studies.

d. Please comment on the scientific and ethical issues arising from the use of ( or decision not to use) negative controls groups in repellent efficacy studies, in both laboratory and field studies.

Negative controls groups are necessary, because they indicate whether biting insects and other arthropods are exhibiting " normal" host seeking/ landing/ feeding behavior. I. e., as negative controls, human subjects must be naturally attractant to biting insects in order to show that a repellent is effective. However, the use of negative controls poses a serious issue when field evaluations of repellent efficacy are conducted in areas where vectorborne diseases are present. Two options are to ( 1) recruit indigenous subjects from the local population who would naturally be exposed to the same number/ rate of bites from insect vectors that are potentially infectious; and ( 2) perform landing catches instead of biting catches, thereby precluding the possibility that disease transmission might occur ( e. g. volunteers can wear Tyvek coveralls that consist of a breathable material but prevent insects from biting through the material). Recording landing catches is acceptable practice and may indeed be the better course of action in some studies, however one must be careful interpreting such data as it is not a direct measure of efficacy as described below in Section ` e'.

e. Please comment on the scientific and ethical issues raised by the design of studies to collect data sufficient to support assessment of repellent efficacy using the two different efficacy metrics: time to first confirmed bite ( TFCB), and time providing x% protection of treated subjects from bites relative to untreated controls ( RP).

The ethical concerns over comfort level of human subjects when using RP can be addressed by ensuring that informed consent includes this particular issue. RP is a more realistic assessment of insect repellent efficacy and should be used as the benchmark. If TFCB is a less realistic assessment of efficacy and is used to test and subsequently approve a repellent for widespread usage, this could present its own ethical problems if this isn't the most rigorous test of the product.

f. Please comment on appropriate approaches for estimating the minimum number of subjects needed to evaluate the level of efficacy of a repellent in laboratory and field studies. Repellent efficacy is assessed relative to an individual subject's relative attractiveness to an insect; therefore, the larger the number of subjects participating, the greater the reduction in the variation of the attractiveness between individual subjects. Efforts should be made to maximize the number of subjects who participate while adhering to a solid experimental design that produces statistically robust data. Bearing in mind that usually more than one formulation is tested ( and perhaps evaluated in comparison with the DEET " gold standard"), it is best to conduct a greater number of replicates using the same subject ( i. e., randomly assign each treatment to a subject over several trials) than increase the number of subjects ( i. e., assign only one treatment to a subject   this decreases the statistical power!). In this way, each treatment would be evaluated on each subject ( i. e., Latin square design); for instance, 6 subjects are required for 6 treatments   where a " treatment" can comprise either a repellent or a positive/ negative control.

g. Please comment on whether or not investigators should have an ethical obligation to provide subjects of repellent efficacy research with insurance to cover possible future medical costs or other losses that result from injury or illness experienced by the subjects as a consequence of their participation in the research.

Investigators should have an ethical obligation to cover any medical costs for situations that arise while a subject is participating in a trial. It is the ethical obligation of the investigator to inform the subject of all possible (= conceivable) risks, injuries, or illness that the subject may experience while participating in the research. Subjects consent to participate after understanding the risks. In most situations, investigators should not be held responsible for any future injury or illness experienced by the subjects as a consequence of their participation in the research, because a future injury or illness could be due to a multitude of factors. However, responsibility for future injury or illness may need to be considered if field trials expose subjects to vector borne disease ( malaria, dengue, etc.). This will be situational dependent and any risks to the subject and future responsibility of the investigator should be clearly outlined during informed consent.

h. Please comment on any special considerations that should be addressed in the informed consent materials provided people who are candidates to become subjects in insect repellent efficacy research.

( 1) Verification of pregnancy status in female subjects is acceptable as determined by OTC urine dipstick assay. ( 2) Subjects should be made aware that the repellent being tested may pose different hazards, including skin exposure and inhalation. ( 3) See comment to Section ` a'.

i. Does the HSRB recommend that the draft guideline be revised? If so, please explain what aspects or sections might improve with revision.

No comment.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33159]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13427]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0311; FRL-9911-89-Region-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Alabama:
Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Alabama State Implementation Plan submitted
by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on
September 3, 2013. The revision would modify the definition of
``volatile organic compounds'' (VOCs). Specifically, the revision adds
four hydrofluoropolyethers compounds to the list of those excluded from
the VOC definition on the basis that these compounds make a negligible
contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. ADEM is seeking to update
its SIP to be consistent with the federal rule finalized by EPA on
February 12, 2013, which excludes these compounds from the regulatory
definition of VOC.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0311, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0311, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Wong, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Wong may be
reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register. In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving the State's implementation plan revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments in response to this notice,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will address all public
comments received in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at
this time.

    Dated: May 28, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-13427 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57539-57541]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26191]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1098; Product Identifier 2012-NM-216-AD; Amendment
39-19116; AD 2017-25-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000
airplanes. This AD requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions
for addressing the unsafe condition on these products, and doing the
actions specified in those instructions. This AD was prompted by
reports indicating that certain exit signs have a hydrogen isotope that
decays over time, causing the signs to lose their brightness. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 21, 2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1098; 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, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2012-0239, dated November 9, 2012 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28
Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A number of Fokker F28 aeroplanes have exit signs installed to
locate the emergency exits. A number of these signs are not
electrically powered, but are self-illuminated by means of a
hydrogen isotope known as Tritium. As this isotope decays over time,
these signs will lose their brightness.
    To remain compliant with regulations, Tritium exit signs should
be replaced when their brightness has deteriorated below accepted
levels. The established service life for the Tritium powered exit
signs is 7 years. Currently, the Fokker F28 maintenance program does
not include a replacement task for signs containing Tritium.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in insufficiently
bright exit signs, possibly preventing safe evacuation during an
emergency, which could result in injury to occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
replacement of all Tritium exit signs with photo-luminescent signs,
which do not have an internal power source like the Tritium powered
exit signs. In addition, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive
maintenance tasks for the new photo-luminescent signs. [The EASA AD
provides an option to revise the airplane maintenance program.]

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
1098.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the

MCAI. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent
information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product, we
find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-1098; Product
Identifier 2012-NM-216-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. This AD
requires contacting the FAA to obtain instructions for addressing the
unsafe condition, and doing the actions specified in those
instructions. Based on the actions specified in the MCAI AD, we are
providing the following cost estimates for an affected airplane that is
placed on the U.S. Register in the future:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85     Unavailable             $85
Inspection....................................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85               0              85
Maintenance program revision..................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85               0              85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2017-25-02 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-19116; Docket No. FAA-
2017-1098; Product Identifier 2012-NM-216-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 21, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 1000,
2000, 3000, and 4000 airplanes, certificated in any category, as
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Serial numbers 11029, 11030, and 11042 in pre-SBF28/33-13
Appendix V configuration.
    (2) Serial numbers 11006, 11012, 11016, 11018, 11020, 11024,
11027, 11028, 11032 through 11038, 11043 through 11049, 11053,
11054, 11061 thru 11087, 11089 through 11113, 11115 through 11124,
11126 through 11132, 11134, 11136 through 11202, 11204 through
11224, 11226 through 11235, 11237, 11238, 11240, 11991, and 11992.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 11, Placards and
markings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain exit
signs have a hydrogen isotope that decays over time, causing the
signs to lose their brightness. We are issuing this AD to prevent
insufficiently illuminated exit signs, which could possibly prevent
safe evacuation during an emergency and cause injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, request
instructions from the Manager, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, to address the unsafe condition specified in
paragraph (e) of this AD; and accomplish the actions at the times
specified in, and in accordance with, those instructions. Guidance
can be found in Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2012-0239, dated
November 9, 2012.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the International Section, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2012-0239, dated November 9, 2012, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-1098.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 22, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-26191 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29609-29611]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee--New Task

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee (ARAC).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA has assigned the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (ARAC) a new task to provide recommendations regarding the
certification of persons engaged in operations involving the loading of
special cargo. Assignment of this task is in response to National
Transportation Safety Board Recommendation A-15-014 which recommended
that the FAA create a certification for personnel responsible for the
loading, restraint, and documentation of special cargo loads on
transport-category airplanes. This notice informs the public of the new
ARAC activity and solicits membership for the new Loadmaster
Certification Working Group.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Grota Cargo Focus Team, AFS-
340 Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20024<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone number (781) 238-
7528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ARAC Acceptance of Task

    As a result of its March 23, 2016, ARAC meeting, the ARAC accepted
this tasking to establish the Loadmaster Certification Working Group.
The Loadmaster Certification Working Group will serve as staff to the
ARAC and provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task. The
ARAC will review and accept the recommendation report and will submit
it to the FAA.

Background

    The FAA established the ARAC to provide information, advice, and
recommendations on aviation related

issues that could result in rulemaking to the FAA Administrator,
through the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
    On April 29, 2013, a Boeing 747-400 BCF operated by an air carrier
conducting all-cargo operations crashed shortly after takeoff from
Bagram Air Base, Bagram, Afghanistan. The airplane was destroyed from
impact forces and post-crash fire. The flight was a supplemental
operation conducted under part 121 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) and was being conducted under a multimodal
contract with the US Transportation Command. The intended destination
for the flight was Dubai World Central--Al Maktoum International
Airport, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
    The airplane's cargo included five mine-resistant ambush-protected
(MRAP) vehicles secured onto pallets with shoring. Two vehicles were
12-ton MRAP all-terrain vehicles (M-ATVs) and three were 18-ton
Cougars. These vehicles were considered special cargo because they
could not be placed in unit load devices (ULDs) and restrained in the
airplane using the locking capabilities of the airplane's main deck
cargo handling system. Instead, the vehicles were secured to
centerline-loaded floating pallets and restrained to the airplane's
main deck using tie-down straps. Special cargo is defined in appendix C
of AC 120-85A, Air Cargo Operations, as ``cargo not contained in a ULD
certified for the airplane cargo loading system (CLS) or not enclosed
in a cargo compartment certified for bulk loading. This type of cargo
requires special handling and securing/restraining procedures.''
    During takeoff, the airplane immediately climbed steeply, then
descended in a manner consistent with an aerodynamic stall. The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation found strong
evidence that at least one of the rear MRAP vehicles moved aft into the
tail section of the airplane, damaging hydraulic systems and horizontal
stabilizer components and making it impossible for the flightcrew to
maintain pitch control of the airplane. The NTSB determined that the
probable cause of this accident was the air carrier's inadequate
procedures for restraining special cargo loads, which resulted in the
loadmaster's improper restraint of the cargo, which moved aft and
damaged hydraulic systems numbers 1 and 2 and horizontal stabilizer
drive mechanism components, rendering the airplane uncontrollable (NTSB
Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-15/01 PB2015-104951).
    As a result of this accident, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendation
A-15-14 which recommended, in part, that the FAA ``[c]reate a
certification for personnel responsible for the loading, restraint, and
documentation of special cargo loads on transport-category airplanes.''
Currently, there is no certificated position for the loading of special
cargo specified in the FAA's regulations. Therefore, there are no
specific individual standards or training requirements to ensure
adherence to operational limitations. Additionally, there is no
specific FAA oversight of these personnel outside of that normally
conducted of a certificate holder's operations. The FAA believes that
such oversight is especially critical when special cargo is carried in
an aircraft.
    Persons performing special cargo loading functions typically
prepare and validate the accuracy of aircraft load manifests and ensure
the aircraft is loaded according to an approved schedule that ensures
the aircraft's center of gravity is within approved limits. Proper
performance of these functions is critical to ensure the flight
characteristics of an aircraft are not adversely affected and that its
structural limitations are not exceeded.

The Task

    The Loadmaster Certification Working Group is tasked to:
    1. Provide advice and recommendations to the ARAC on whether safety
would be enhanced if persons engaged in the loading and supervision of
the loading of special cargo, to include the preparation and accuracy
of special cargo load plans, be certificated. If the Working Group
recommends certification of these persons, it should also provide
recommendations regarding which specific operations should require the
use of these certificated persons. Additionally, it should also
recommend appropriate knowledge, experience, and skill requirements for
the issuance of the certificates and appropriate privileges and
limitations.
    2. Determine the effect of its recommendations on impacted parties.
    3. Develop a report containing recommendations based upon its
analysis and findings. The report should document both majority and
dissenting positions on its recommendations and findings and the
rationale for each position. Any disagreements should be documented,
including the rationale for each position and the reasons for the
disagreement.
    In developing this report the Working Group shall familiarize
itself with:
    1. NTSB Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-15/01 PB2015-104951NTSB,
with particular attention provided to Safety Recommendation A-15-14.
    2. AC 120-85A, Air Cargo Operations.
    3. Minutes of the June 30, 2015 B747 Special Cargo Load Meeting.
    The working group may be reinstated to assist the ARAC by
responding to FAA's questions or concerns after its recommendations
have been submitted.

Schedule

    The recommendation report should be submitted to the FAA for review
and acceptance no later than 24 months from the publication date of
this notice in the Federal Register.

Working Group Activity

    The Loadmaster Certification Working Group must comply with the
procedures adopted by the ARAC and:
    1. Conduct a review and analysis of the assigned tasks and any
other related materials or documents.
    2. Draft and submit a work plan for completion of the task,
including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration by
the ARAC.
    3. Provide a status report at each ARAC meeting.
    4. Draft and submit the recommendation report based on the review
and analysis of the assigned tasks.
    5. Present the recommendation report at the ARAC meeting.

Participation in the Working Group

    The Loadmaster Certification Working Group will be comprised of
technical experts having an interest in the assigned task. A working
group member need not be a member representative of the ARAC. The FAA
would like a wide range of members to ensure all aspects of the tasks
are considered in development of the recommendations. The provisions of
the August 13, 2014, Office of Management and Budget guidance,
``Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists to Federal Advisory
Committees, Boards, and Commissions'' (79 FR 47482), continues the ban
on registered lobbyists participating on Agency Boards and Commissions
if participating in their ``individual capacity.'' The revised guidance
now allows registered lobbyists to participate on Agency Boards and
Commissions in a ``representative capacity'' for the ``express purpose
of providing a committee with the views of a nongovernmental entity, a
recognizable group of persons or nongovernmental entities (an industry,
sector, labor

unions, or environmental groups, etc.) or state or local government''
(For further information, see the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA)
as amended, 2 U.S.C. 1603, 1604, and 1605).
    If you wish to become a member of the Loadmaster Certification
Working Group, contact the person listed under the caption FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT expressing that desire. Describe your interest in
the task and state the expertise you would bring to the working group.
The FAA must receive all requests by June 13, 2016. The ARAC and the
FAA will review the requests and advise you whether or not your request
is approved.
    If you are chosen for membership on the working group, you must
actively participate in the working group, attend all meetings, and
provide written comments when requested. You must devote the resources
necessary to support the working group in meeting any assigned
deadlines. You must keep your management and those you may represent
advised of working group activities and decisions to ensure the
proposed technical solutions do not conflict with the position of those
you represent. Once the working group has begun deliberations, members
will not be added or substituted without the approval of the ARAC
Chair, the FAA, including the Designated Federal Officer, and the
Working Group Chair.
    The Secretary of Transportation determined the formation and use of
the ARAC is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law. The ARAC meetings are
open to the public. However, meetings of the Loadmaster Certification
Working Group are not open to the public, except to the extent
individuals with an interest and expertise are selected to participate.
The FAA will make no public announcement of working group meetings.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2016-11104 Filed 5-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17408-17409]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-83-000.
    Applicants: GenOn Holdco 10, LLC, NRG Canal LLC, Stonepeak Kestrel
Holdings LLC.
    Description: Joint Application under FPA Section 203 of GenOn
Holdco 10, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 4/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180412-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-865-001.
    Applicants: Power 52 Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Power52 Market Based Rate Tariff to
be effective 4/17/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180412-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1357-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,

Michigan Electric Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-04-12 SA 3026 METC--
City of Holland 1st Rev SIFA to be effective 5/12/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180412-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1358-000.
    Applicants: Avangrid Renewables, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination of Wind
Balancing Services Tariff to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180412-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1359-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Power and Water
Resources Pooling Authority IA and WDT SA (SA 30) to be effective 5/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 4/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180413-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1360-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Request for One Time Waiver of San Diego Gas &
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 4/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180412-5226.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1361-000.
    Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be
effective 4/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180413-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1362-000.
    Applicants: Arlington Wind Power Project LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be
effective 4/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180413-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES18-28-000.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: Application of DTE Electric Company for Authorization
to Issue Securities and Request for Exemption from Competitive Bidding
Requirements.
    Filed Date: 4/13/18.
    Accession Number: 20180413-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 13, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08168 Filed 4-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2173-2175]
[DOCID:fr14ja10-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61297; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-094]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change Relating To Extending the Pilot Period Regarding
the Use of Multiple MPIDs on FINRA Facilities

January 6, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 29, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to extend through January 28, 2011, the current
rules regarding the use of multiple Market Participant Symbols
(``MPIDs'') in FINRA Rules 6160 (with respect to Trade Reporting
Facilities (``TRFs'')), 6170 (with respect to the Alternative Display
Facility (``ADF'')), and 6480 (with respect to the OTC Reporting
Facility (``ORF'')).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA has three rules governing the use of multiple MPIDs on FINRA
facilities: Rule 6160 (Multiple MPIDs for Trade Reporting Facility
Participants), Rule 6170 (Primary and Additional MPIDs for Alternative
Display Facility Participants), and Rule 6480 (Multiple MPIDs for
Quoting and Trading in OTC Equity Securities). The pilot period for all
three rules is scheduled to expire on January 29, 2010. FINRA believes
that there continue to be legitimate business reasons for members to
maintain multiple MPIDs for use on FINRA facilities. Consequently,
FINRA is proposing to extend the pilot period for each of the three
rules until January 28, 2011. FINRA is not proposing any other changes
to the rules at this time.
(a) Rule 6160
    Rule 6160 provides that any Trade Reporting Facility Participant
that wishes to use more than one MPID for purposes of reporting trades
to a TRF must submit a written request to, and obtain approval from,
FINRA Operations for such additional MPIDs. In addition, Supplementary
Material to the rule states that FINRA considers the issuance of, and
trade reporting with, multiple MPIDs to be a privilege and not a right.
A Trade Reporting Facility Participant must identify the purpose(s) and
system(s) for which the multiple MPIDs will be used. If FINRA
determines that the use of multiple MPIDs is detrimental to the
marketplace, or that a Trade Reporting Facility Participant is using
one or more additional MPIDs improperly or for other than the
purpose(s) identified by the Participant, FINRA staff retains full
discretion to limit or withdraw its grant of the additional MPID(s) to
such Trade Reporting Facility Participant for purposes of reporting
trades to a TRF. FINRA believes that Rule 6160 is necessary to
consolidate the process of issuing, and tracking the use of, multiple
MPIDs used to report trades to TRFs.
    Rule 6160 was approved by the Commission in 2006 on a pilot
basis.\4\

The pilot period has been extended several times since the rule was
originally adopted and currently expires on January 29, 2010.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54715 (November 6,
2006), 71 FR 66354 (November 14, 2006); see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 54715A (November 14, 2006), 71 FR 67183 (November
20, 2006).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59183 (December 30,
2008), 74 FR 842 (January 8, 2009); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 57217 (January 28, 2008), 73 FR 6234 (February 1, 2008);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55206 (January 31, 2007), 72 FR
5479 (February 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Rule 6170
    Rule 6170 provides that a Registered Reporting ADF ECN may request
additional MPIDs for displaying quotes and orders and reporting trades
through the ADF trade reporting facility, TRACS, for any ADF-Eligible
Security. Registered Reporting ADF ECNs that are permitted the use of
additional MPIDs for displaying quotes and orders are subject to the
same rules applicable to the member's first quotation (i.e., ECNs that
display one or more additional quotes/orders are required to comply
with all rules applicable to ECNs in their display of quotes/orders).
Registered Reporting ADF ECNs are also prohibited from using an
additional MPID to accomplish indirectly what they are prohibited from
doing directly through their Primary MPID. In addition, FINRA staff
retains full discretion to determine whether a bona fide regulatory
and/or business need exists for being granted an additional MPID
privilege and to limit or withdraw the additional MPID display
privilege at any time. The procedures for requesting, and the
restrictions surrounding the use of, multiple MPIDs are set forth in
Supplementary Material to the rule.
    The Commission approved Rule 6170 on a pilot basis on August 11,
2006.\6\ The pilot period has been extended several times since the
rule was originally adopted and currently expires on January 29,
2010.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54307 (August 11,
2006), 71 FR 47551 (August 17, 2006). By its terms, the initial
pilot period expired on January 26, 2007, to coincide with the
expiration of the ADF pilot period. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 53699 (April 21, 2006), 71 FR 25271 (April 28, 2006). On
January 26, 2007, the Commission approved a proposed rule change to
make the ADF rules permanent. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 55181 (January 26, 2007), 72 FR 5093 (February 2, 2007).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59183 (December 30,
2008), 74 FR 842 (January 8, 2009); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 57217 (January 28, 2008), 73 FR 6234 (February 1, 2008);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55206 (January 31, 2007), 72 FR
5479 (February 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Rule 6480
    Like Rule 6160, Rule 6480 provides that any member that wishes to
use more than one MPID for purposes of quoting an OTC Equity Security
or reporting trades to the ORF must submit a written request to, and
obtain approval from, FINRA Operations for such additional MPIDs. The
rule also states that a member that posts a quotation in an OTC Equity
Security and reports to a FINRA system a trade resulting from such
posted quotation must utilize the same MPID for reporting purposes. In
addition, Supplementary Material to the rule states that FINRA
considers the issuance of, and trade reporting with, multiple MPIDs to
be a privilege and not a right. When requesting an additional MPID(s),
a member must identify the purpose(s) and system(s) for which the
multiple MPIDs will be used. If FINRA determines that the use of
multiple MPIDs is detrimental to the marketplace, or that a member is
using one or more additional MPIDs improperly or for purposes other
than the purpose(s) identified by the member, FINRA staff retains full
discretion to limit or withdraw its grant of the additional MPID(s) to
such member.
    FINRA adopted Rule 6480 on a pilot basis on July 23, 2009, and the
pilot period expires on January 29, 2010.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60414 (July 31,
2009), 74 FR 39721 (August 7, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date of the proposed rule change will
be January 29, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with these requirements because it will provide a process by
which members can request, and FINRA can properly allocate, the use of
additional MPIDs for displaying quotes and orders through the ADF or
reporting trades to a TRF or the ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-094 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-094. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-FINRA-2009-094 and should be submitted on or before February 4,
2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-538 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59471-59472]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23363]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 271 and 272

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2012-0793; FRL-9916-01-Region 6]

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State-Initiated Changes and
Incorporation by Reference of State Hazardous Waste Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: During a review of Arkansas' regulations, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) identified a variety of State-initiated changes
to Arkansas' hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA), for which the State had not
previously sought authorization. The EPA proposes to authorize the
State for the program changes. In addition, the EPA proposes to codify
in the regulations entitled ``Approved State Hazardous Waste Management
Programs'', Arkansas' authorized hazardous waste program. The EPA will
incorporate by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
those provisions of the State regulations that are authorized and that
the EPA will enforce under RCRA.

DATES: Send written comments by November 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, or Julia Banks, Codification Coordinator,
State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733. Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
also submit comments electronically or through hand delivery/courier;
please follow the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register, the EPA is authorizing

the changes to the Arkansas program, and codifying and incorporating by
reference the State's hazardous waste program as a direct final rule.
The EPA did not make a proposal prior to the direct final rule because
we believe these actions are not controversial and do not expect
comments that oppose them. We have explained the reasons for this
authorization and incorporation by reference in the preamble to the
direct final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
authorization and incorporation by reference during the comment period,
the direct final rule will become effective on the date it establishes,
and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get
comments that oppose these actions, we will withdraw the direct final
rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public
comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have
another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action,
you must do so at this time.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: August 18, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-23363 Filed 10-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6679-6680]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 140, 143, and 146

46 CFR Parts 61 and 62

[USCG-2014-0063]
RIN 1625-AC16

Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer
Continental Shelf Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems--Comment
Period Extension

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending for 90 days the comment period
for the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Requirements
for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental Shelf
Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems'' published on November 28,
2014. This extension is necessary to allow sufficient time for the
Coast Guard to hold a public meeting and receive any subsequent public
comments on the NPRM.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before May 27, 2015
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0481 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email LT Stephanie Waller, Human Element and Ship Design
Division, Commandant (CG-ENG-1), Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms.
Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2014-0063), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2014-0063'' in the ``Search'' box. Click on ``Submit a
Comment'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
based on your comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert ``USCG-2014-0063'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search.''
Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. If you do
not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement
with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management
Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

II. Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in
the Federal Register on November 28, 2014 entitled, ``Requirements for
MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental Shelf Activities
With Dynamic Positioning Systems'' (79 FR 70943). The proposed rule
would establish minimum design, operation, training, and manning
standards for mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and other vessels
using dynamic positioning systems to engage in Outer Continental Shelf
activities. Establishing these minimum standards is necessary to
improve the safety of people and property involved in such operations,
and the protection of the environment in which they operate. The rule
would decrease the risk of a loss of position by a dynamically-
positioned MODU or other vessel that could result in a fire, explosion,
or subsea spill, and support the Coast Guard's strategic goals of
maritime safety and protection of natural resources.
    In the NPRM, we stated our intention to hold a public meeting, and
to publish a notice to announce the location and date of that meeting
(79 FR 70944). In order to allow sufficient time for the Coast Guard to
hold such a meeting and receive any subsequent public comments on the
NPRM, we are

extending the end of the public comment period from February 26, 2015
to May 27, 2015.

III. Authority

    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: February 3, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-02415 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59839-59842]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1075; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-111-AD;
Amendment 39-18628; AD 2016-17-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes. This AD was prompted by the need for more stringent
inspection requirements for certain affected components. This AD
requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate
certain revised airworthiness limitations (AWL) and require repairs of
affected components. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking in the affected components; such cracking could result
in loss of structural integrity.

DATES: This AD is effective October 5, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 5,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
1075.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
1075; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone:
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Zimmer, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on October 27,
2015 (80 FR 65666) (``the SNPRM''). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on
October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63282) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM proposed to
require revising the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate
revised AWL tasks specified in certain technical requirements. The NPRM
was prompted by the need for more stringent inspection requirements for
certain affected components. The SNPRM proposed to require revising the
maintenance or inspection program to incorporate certain revised AWL
tasks instead of TRs, and to require repairs of affected components. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the
affected components. Such cracking could result in loss of structural
integrity.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority

for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2012-13, dated April 10, 2012
(referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 &
440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A revision has been made to Part 2 of the Canadair Regional Jet
Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM), Airworthiness Limitations
(AWL), to introduce more stringent inspection requirements for
continued airworthiness based on re-analysis, in-service data and/or
fatigue testing. Failure to comply with these revised AWL items
could lead to an unsafe condition.
    This [Canadian] AD is issued to ensure that fatigue cracking of
these affected components [and consequent loss of airplane
structural integrity] is detected and corrected.

    Required actions include revising the maintenance program by
incorporating the revised inspection requirements specified in certain
TRs. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2012-1075.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw SNPRM

    Mr. Aaron Ahern stated that the SNPRM must be denied and considered
null and void. Mr. Ahern provided no justification for this statement.
    From this statement, we infer that Mr. Ahern is requesting we
withdraw the SNPRM. We disagree with the request. It is within our
authority to issue ADs to require actions to address unsafe conditions
that are not otherwise being addressed (or are not addressed
adequately) by normal maintenance procedures. We may address such
unsafe conditions by requiring revisions to maintenance or inspection
programs as a condition under which airplanes may continue to be
operated. We agree with TCCA's finding of an unsafe condition based on
analysis, in-service data, and/or fatigue testing. From the data
gathered, we have determined that fatigue cracking is likely to exist
or develop in certain components of the affected airplanes. As a
result, we have determined that the actions required by this AD are
necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. We have not
changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Allow for Other Methods of Compliance

    Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation (Air Wisconsin) requested that
we revise the proposed AD to allow qualified FAA representatives, such
as Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs) and Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) holders, to approve repair methods. Air
Wisconsin stated that 14 CFR 121.1109 (Supplemental Inspections)
requires a certificate holder's maintenance program to include FAA-
approved damage tolerance inspections and procedures. Air Wisconsin
pointed out that both DERs and ODAs already perform damage tolerance
evaluations (DTEs).
    We disagree. While we might authorize a design approval holder's
DERs to determine whether a design or repair method complies with a
specific requirement of a structural AD, they are not authorized to
make the discretionary determination of the applicable requirement.
DERs are not authorized to approve repairs as alternative methods of
compliance (AMOCs) to ADs, except under specific conditions described
in FAA Orders 8110.103, 8100.15, and 8100.37. In addition, this AD
already includes a provision for TCCA's Design Approval Organization
(DAO) to approve repairs. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Confirm Previously Approved Repairs

    Air Wisconsin requested that we confirm whether repairs that may
not have been incorporated per paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), and
(k)(2)(iii) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) are still considered
approved for compliance to this AD under paragraph (k)(2) of the
proposed AD (in the SNPRM).
    We agree. As long as the previously approved repair meets the
requirements of paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(2)(iii) of
this AD, it does not matter when the repair is actually accomplished.
We have clarified paragraph (k)(2)(i) of this AD to reflect this. In
response to Air Wisconsin's comment regarding this issue in the NPRM,
we had included a provision in paragraph (k)(2)(i) of the proposed AD
(in the SNPRM) to allow for previously approved repairs in the
inspection area that were approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA
DAO, but that provision included the language ``the repairs were
accomplished.'' We have removed that language from paragraph (k)(2)(i)
of this AD.

Request To Reference Revised Service Information

    SkyWest Airlines (SkyWest) requested that we revise the SNPRM to
reference the latest service information. SkyWest pointed out that
Bombardier has issued Revision 10, dated May 10, 2015, of Part 2,
Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance
Requirements Manual (MRM), CSP A-053.
    We agree to reference Bombardier Revision 10, dated May 10, 2015,
of Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19
MRM, CSP A-053, as the appropriate source of service information for
certain requirements of this AD. We have revised this final rule
accordingly.

Request To Remove Requirement That Repair Approvals Refer to the MCAI

    SkyWest requested that we remove the requirement that repair
approvals must refer to the MCAI. SkyWest stated that leaving this
paragraph in the AD would require SkyWest to request a large number of
AMOCs for their fleet as soon as the AD becomes effective. SkyWest
asserts that none of the repair engineering orders (REOs) and general
repair engineering orders (GREOs) reference the MCAI, and do not have
an inspection method.
    We disagree with the request. We are aware of instances of repairs
in an affected area that are signed by the foreign authority's
authorized delegate, but did not correct the unsafe condition because
they were outdated. A repair that references the unsafe condition
addressed in the MCAI guarantees an approved repair. A revised service
document or AMOC that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD is acceptable. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Appendix B--Airworthiness Limitations,
of Part 2 Airworthiness Requirements, Revision 10, dated May 10, 2015,
of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM) CSP
A-053. Appendix B provides specific AWLs, including the following AWLs.
     AWL 52-11-131, ``Passenger door--piano hinge half on door
side.'' This AWL describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection
of the piano hinge half on the passenger door side.
     AWL 53-11-122, ``Windshield center post and bulkhead aft
post at FS202.75.'' This AWL describes procedures for a special
detailed inspection of the windshield center post and bulkhead aft post
at fuselage station (FS) 202.75.
     AWL 53-21-118, ``Potable water servicing door cut-out and
internal structure.'' This AWL describes procedures for a detailed
visual inspection of the potable water servicing door cut-out and
internal structure.
     AWL 53-21-129, ``Passenger door--piano hinge half on
fuselage side.'' This AWL describes procedures for a detailed visual
inspection of the piano hinge half of the passenger door on the
fuselage side.
     AWL 53-41-199, ``FS409.0 +128 vertical posts at BL0.0 and
BL18.0 left and right local to WL69.0.'' This AWL describes procedures
for a special detailed inspection of the FS409.0 +128 left and right
vertical posts at buttock line (BL) 0.0 and BL18.0 local to water line
(WL) 69.0.
     AWL 53-41-200, ``FS409.0 +128 frame cap aft and fwd splice
angles at STR21 left and right.'' This AWL describes procedures for a
detailed visual inspection of the FS409.0 +128 frame cap aft and
forward splice angles at stringer 21.
     AWL 53-41-201, ``FS559.0 pressure bulkhead web and cap
angle local to BL9.0 and BL18.0 left and right.'' This AWL describes
procedures for a special detailed inspection of the left and right
FS559.0 pressure bulkhead web and cap angle local to BL9.0 and BL18.0.
     AWL 53-61-156, ``Rear pressure bulkhead forward face below
floor.'' This AWL describes procedures for a special detailed
inspection of the below floor forward face of the rear pressure
bulkhead.
     AWL 54-10-105, ``Pylon track and support fitting.'' This
AWL describes procedures for a special detailed inspection of the pylon
track and support fitting.
     AWL 54-10-106, ``Pylon track and support fitting.'' This
AWL describes procedures for a special detailed inspection of the pylon
track and support fitting.
     AWL 57-21-105, ``Lower wing skin, between BL0.0 to wing
station (WS) 314.0.'' This AWL describes procedures for a detailed
visual inspection of the lower wing skin, between BL0.0 to WS314.0.
     AWL 57-21-112, ``Lower wing plank splice joints at BL45.0,
WS65.75, and WS148.0.'' This AWL describes procedures for a special
detailed inspection of the lower wing plank splice joints at BL45.0,
WS65.75, and WS148.0.
    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

    We estimate that this AD affects 575 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                    Action                                Labor cost                product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revising maintenance program.................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                $85          $48,875
                                                $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2016-17-15 Bombardier, Inc: Amendment 39-18628. Docket No. FAA-2012-
1075; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-111-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 5, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional
Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category,
serial numbers 7003 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic
inspections.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the need for more stringent inspection
requirements for certain affected components. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the affected components,
which could result in loss of structural integrity.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Program or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
revised inspection requirements specified in the AWLs identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(12) of this AD. These AWLs are
identified in Appendix B--Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2,
Airworthiness Requirements, Revision 10, dated May 10, 2015, of the
Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM) CSP A-
053.
    (1) AWL 52-11-131, ``Passenger door--piano hinge half on door
side.''
    (2) AWL 53-11-122, ``Windshield center post and bulkhead aft
post at FS202.75.''
    (3) AWL 53-21-118, ``Potable water servicing door cut-out and
internal structure.''
    (4) AWL 53-21-129, ``Passenger door--piano hinge half on
fuselage side.''
    (5) AWL 53-41-199, ``FS409.0+128 vertical posts at BL0.0 and
BL18.0 left and right local to WL69.0.''
    (6) AWL 53-41-200, ``FS409.0+128 frame cap aft and fwd splice
angles at STR21 left and right.''
    (7) AWL 53-41-201, ``FS559.0 pressure bulkhead web and cap angle
local to BL9.0 and BL18.0 left and right.''
    (8) AWL 53-61-156, ``Rear pressure bulkhead forward face below
floor.''
    (9) AWL 54-10-105, ``Pylon track and support fitting.''
    (10) AWL 54-10-106, ``Pylon track and support fitting.''
    (11) AWL 57-21-105, ``Lower wing skin, between BL0.0 to
WS314.0.''
    (12) AWL 57-21-112, ``Lower wing plank splice joints at BL45.0,
WS65.75, and WS148.0.''

(h) Initial Compliance Times for AWL Tasks

    (1) For tasks with phase-in schedules specified in the AWLs
identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(12) of this AD: The
initial compliance times are at the applicable times specified in
the applicable AWL, or within 60 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later, except as specified in paragraph
(h)(2) of this AD.
    (2) For tasks with no phase-in schedules specified in the AWLs
identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(12) of this AD: The
initial compliance times are at the applicable times specified in
Appendix B--Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2, Airworthiness
Requirements, Revision 10, dated May 10, 2015, of the Bombardier CL-
600-2B19 MRM CSP A-053; or within 1,000 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

(i) Corrective Action

    If any damage (including, but not limited to, cracking,
corrosion, and wear) is found during any inspection required by any
AWL specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight,
repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).

(j) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may
be used other than those specified in the AWLs identified in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(12) of this AD; unless the actions and
intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, or the actions and intervals
are approved as part of a repair specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-
7300; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Previously Approved Repairs: Repairs approved before the
effective date of this AD that meet the conditions specified in
paragraphs (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(2)(iii) of this AD are
acceptable methods of compliance for the repaired area.
    (i) The repairs were approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-
170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
    (ii) The repair approval refers to Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2012-13, dated April
10, 2012, and provides an inspection program (inspection threshold,
method, and repetitive interval).
    (iii) The operator has revised its maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to include the inspection program
(inspection threshold, method, and repetitive interval) for the
repair.
    (3) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Canadian AD CF-2012-13, dated April 10, 2012, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2012-1075.

(m) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Appendix B--Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2,
Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19
Maintenance Requirements Manual, Revision 10, dated May 10, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-
855-7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2016.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-20707 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P