[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 10634-10636]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59497; File No. SR-BX-2009-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Order Handling and Exposure
Periods on the Boston Options Exchange Facility

March 4, 2009.
    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 February 27, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain Rules of the Boston Options
Exchange (``BOX'') to reduce the order handling and exposure periods
contained within the BOX Rules from three seconds to one second. The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/Filings/.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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. The self-regulatory organization
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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to reduce the order
handling and exposure periods from three seconds to one second in the
Supplementary Material to Section 17 (Customer Orders and Order Flow
Providers) and in Section 18 (The Price Improvement Period (``PIP''))
of Chapter V (Doing Business on BOX) of the BOX Rules. These sections
require that orders entered into the BOX limit order book (``BOX
Book''), or the PIP, respectively, are currently exposed to all market
participants for three seconds before the orders are automatically
executed, giving Options Participants (``Participants'') an opportunity
to enter additional trading interests.
    Chapter V of the BOX Rules outlines certain requirements related to
order handling by BOX Options Participants and Market Makers. A
Participant may not execute an order it represents as agent with a
facilitation or a solicited order unless it complies with the order
exposure requirements contained in Chapter V, Section 17, Supplementary
Materials .02 and .03. Specifically, Supplementary Material .02 to
Section 17 provides that an Options Participant may not cause the
execution of an order it represents as agent on BOX through the use of
orders it solicited unless the agency order is first exposed to the BOX
Book for at least three seconds. Furthermore, Supplementary Material
.03 to Section 17 provides that an order flow provider (``OFP'') may
not execute as principal an order it represents as agent unless the OFP
(i) exposes the order to the BOX Book for three seconds; (ii) has been
bidding or offering on BOX for at least three seconds prior to
receiving an agency order that is executable against such bid or offer;
or (iii) sends the agency order to the PIP or Universal Price
Improvement Period (``UPIP''). Under the proposal, these time periods
would be reduced to one second.
    The Exchange is also proposing to reduce the PIP in Section 18 of
Chapter V from three seconds to one second. Currently the PIP allows
Participants to designate certain customer orders for price improvement
and submit such orders to the PIP with a matching contra order
(``Primary Improvement Order''). Once an order is submitted to the PIP,
BOX broadcasts a message to Options Participants that commences the PIP
and (1) states that a Primary Improvement Order has been processed; (2)
contains information concerning series, size, price and side of the
market of the order; and (3) states when the PIP will conclude. This
proposal would reduce the PIP to one second.
    When approving the existing three second order handling and
exposure periods, the Commission concluded that, in the electronic
environment of BOX, reducing these time periods to three seconds was
fully consistent with the electronic nature of the BOX market.\3\ BOX
recognized that three seconds would not be long enough to allow human
interaction with orders. Rather, Participants have been operating with
sufficiently automated electronic systems so that they can react and
respond to orders in a meaningful way within three seconds and BOX
fully anticipates that this will continue within the proposed one
second time frame. BOX believes that further reducing its order
handling and exposure periods from three seconds to one second will
benefit all market participants. BOX believes it is in all
participants' best interests to minimize the time of the exposure
period while continuing to allow Participants adequate time to
electronically respond, as both the order being exposed and
Participants responding are subject to market risk during the exposure
period. Indeed, most participants wait until the end of the last second
of the current three second period before responding to exposed orders
so as to minimize market risk. BOX believes that one second will
continue to provide market participants with sufficient time to
respond, compete, and provide price improvement for orders and will
provide investors and other market participants with more timely
executions, thereby reducing their market risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53854; (May 24,
2006), 71 FR 30975 (May 31, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, BOX distributed a survey to Participants that regularly
participate in the PIP or would otherwise be affected by this proposal.
To substantiate that its Participants could receive, process, and
communicate a response back to BOX within one second, the survey asked
Participants to identify (i) approximately how many milliseconds it
takes for an order broadcast from BOX

to reach their systems; (ii) approximately how many milliseconds it
takes their systems to generate a response to an order broadcast; (iii)
approximately how many milliseconds it takes their response to an order
broadcast to reach BOX; and (iv) whether or not a reduction of the PIP
and facilitation and solicitation order exposure time periods to one
second would impair their ability to participate in BOX PIPs or
facilitation or solicitation orders. The survey results indicate that
the time it takes a message to travel between BOX and its Participants
typically is not more than fifty milliseconds each way.\4\ The survey
also indicated that it typically takes not more than ten milliseconds
for Participant systems to process the information and generate a
response. Thus, the survey indicated that it typically takes at most
110 milliseconds for Participants to receive, process, and respond to
broadcast messages related to the PIP or facilitation or solicitation
related broadcasts and for such responses to reach BOX. Additionally,
Participants indicated that reducing the exposure period to one second
would not impair their ability to participate in orders executed
through the PIP or facilitation or solicitation orders.\5\ The Exchange
believes that this information provides additional support for its
assertion that reducing the exposure periods from three seconds to one
second will continue to provide Participants with sufficient time to
ensure effective interaction with orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Seventeen firms responded to the survey. Thirteen of the
seventeen responded to the specific timing questions.
    \5\ All of the thirteen Participants that responded to the
specific timing questions, and two of the four Participants that did
not answer the specific timing questions, indicated that reducing
the exposure time periods to one second would not impair their
ability to participate in BOX PIPs or facilitation or crossing
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX Participants are able to respond to PIP orders in less than one
second and this rule change could provide additional customer orders an
opportunity for price improvement because it will reduce the market
risk for Participants that are required to guarantee an execution at
the National Best Bid/Offer (``NBBO'') or better. Accordingly, BOX does
not believe it is necessary or beneficial to the orders being exposed
to continue to subject them to market risk for a full three seconds.
    After Commission approval of the proposal, and at least one week
prior to implementation of the rule change, BOXR will issue a
regulatory circular to Participants. The regulatory circular will
inform Participants of the implementation date of the reduction of the
order handling and exposure periods from three seconds to one second.
This will give Participants an opportunity to make any necessary
modifications to coincide with the implementation date.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In particular, the proposed rule change will provide investors with
more timely execution of their options orders, while ensuring that
there is an adequate exposure of all crossing orders on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of this proposed
rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice in the Federal Register. The Commission is considering granting
accelerated approval of the proposed rule change at the end of a 15-day
comment period.

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-BX-2009-015 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-BX-2009-015. 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, on business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., located at 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-015 and should

be submitted on or before March 26, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5130 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19021-19024]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06493]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0656; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01433-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by reports of a non-full life clearance in the low-
pressure hydraulic pipes of the nose landing gear return line, due to
two quality escapes. This proposed AD would require replacing

the affected aluminum pipes with titanium pipes, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference (IBR). This proposed AD would also prohibit
the installation of affected parts. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 15,
2023.

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 regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0656; 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 NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0656.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dat Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-0656; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-01433-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dat
Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0217R1, dated March 1, 2023
(EASA AD 2022-0217R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
The MCAI states Airbus received reports from the manufacturer of a non-
full life clearance in the low-pressure hydraulic pipes of the nose
landing gear return line, due to two separate quality escapes. One
quality escape occurred when after alodine process application on
aluminum pipes, black spots and stains caused by corrosion pitting were
found on inner and outer diameters. In a second quality escape,
aluminum pipes were identified with an average ovality value (which
measures the maximum and minimum outer diameter of the pipe) above the
admissible value. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a
premature rupture in the yellow hydraulic line, which, in case of
additional independent system failures, could result in reduced
airplane controllability.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0656.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0217R1 specifies procedures for replacing the affected
aluminum pipes with titanium pipes. EASA AD 2022-0217R1 also prohibits
the installation of affected parts.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2022-0217R1 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with

requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating
this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes
to incorporate EASA AD 2922-0217R1 by reference in the FAA final rule.
This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD
2022-0217R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a
particular section in EASA AD 2022-0217R1 does not mean that operators
need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-
0217R1. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0217R1 for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-
2023-0656 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 24 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                    Parts cost              Cost per product        Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 130 work-hours x $85 per   Up to $16,500............  Up to $27,550............  Up to $661,200.
 hour = $11,050.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

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 products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2023-0656; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-
01433-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by May 15, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-0941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a non-full life clearance in
the low-pressure hydraulic pipes of the nose landing gear return
line within the yellow hydraulic line system, due to two quality
escapes. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the quality escapes
in the manufacture of these pipes. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in premature rupture in the yellow hydraulic
line, which, in case of additional independent system failures,
could result in reduced airplane controllability.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0217R1, dated March 1, 2023 (EASA AD 2022-0217R1).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0217R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0217R1 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0217R1.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2022-0217R1 refers to November 18, 2022 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2022-0217), this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) 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
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dat Le, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation
Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516
228 7317; email: [email protected].

(k) 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0217R1,
dated March 1, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0217R1, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. 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 protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 24, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-06493 Filed 3-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 22359]
[DOCID:fr25ap08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.: 733-010]

Eric Jacobson; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the
Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and
Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

April 18, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 733-010.
    c. Date Filed: April 9, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Eric Jacobson.
    e. Name of Project: Ouray Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Uncompahgre River in
Ouray County, Colorado. The project occupies lands within the
Uncompahgre National Forest managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Eric Jacobson, P.O. Box 745, Telluride, CO
81435;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Steve Hocking,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Project Description: The project consists of the following
existing facilities: (1) A 0.48-acre reservoir formed by a 70-foot-long
masonry gravity dam with a maximum height of 72 feet consisting of a
51-foot-long non-overflow section and a 19-foot-wide spillway; (2) a
6,130-foot-long pressure pipeline; (3) a 32-by-65-foot powerhouse
containing three turbine-generating units with a total authorized
capacity of 632 kilowatts (kW); and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
applicant proposes to upgrade turbine-generator unit No. 1 and add a
fourth turbine-generator unit to increase the project's total installed
capacity to 775 kW.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction by contacting the
applicant using the contact information in item (h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready  September 1, 2008.
 for Environmental Analysis.
Interventions, Recommendations,       October 30, 2008.
 Terms and Conditions due.
Commission Issues Single              January 13, 2009.
 Environmental Assessment (EA).
EA Comments due.....................  February 12, 2009.
Modified Terms and Conditions due...  April 13, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9022 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 33)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7844-7847]
[DOCID:fr20fe09-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2009-0051]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), Scotts Hill, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the drawbridge operation
regulations of the Figure Eight Swing Bridge, at AIWW mile 278.1, at
Scotts Hill, NC. This proposal would allow for the drawbridge to open
on signal every hour on the half hour for the passage of pleasure
vessels. At all times, the draw will continue to open on signal for
commercial vessels. The proposed change would result in more efficient
use of the bridge.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2009-0051 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed

rule, call Gary S. Heyer, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0051), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying
and electronic filing. If you submit them 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. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

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 at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2009-0051)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal
Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can 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 the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The Figure Eight Homeowner Association Inc., (FEHAI), is
responsible for the operation of the Figure Eight Swing Bridge, at AIWW
mile 278.1, at Scotts Hill, NC.
    In the closed-to-navigation position, the Figure Eight Swing Bridge
has a vertical clearance of 20 feet, above mean high water (MHW). Also,
the vertical clearance in the open position at this location is limited
to 85 feet, above MHW, by the overhead power line. The existing
regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(3) which requires the draw
to open on signal at all times for commercial vessels, and open on the
hour and half hour for pleasure craft.
    The FEHAI requested a change to the existing regulations in an
effort to improve the schedule for both roadway and waterway users. The
swing bridge provides the only route on and off Figure Eight Island.
This proposal would not change the requirement for the bridge to open
on signal at any time for commercial and government vessels. The
proposal would facilitate pleasure craft in navigating the AIWW, while
also helping to ease vehicular traffic congestion. Most vessels
transiting the area in the spring and fall are operated by owners
commonly referred to as ``snowbirds''. Owners of these transitory
recreational vessels are either traveling north to south towards a
warmer climate in the fall or south to north towards a cooler climate
in the spring which can result in frequent bridge openings due to
increased number of vessels. (See Table A)

                                                                         Table A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Bridge Openings for 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      JAN          FEB          MAR          APR          MAY          JUN          JUL          AUG         SEPT            OCT       NOV          DEC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      147           97          160          297          410          313          311          164          160          340         399         227
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1Bridge Openings for 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      JAN          FEB          MAR          APR          MAY          JUN          JUL          AUG         SEPT            OCT       NOV          DEC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      156           80          162          309          388          308          237          163          164          331         354         172
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                1Bridge Openings for 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      JAN          FEB          MAR          APR          MAY          JUN          JUL          AUG         SEPT            OCT       NOV          DEC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      151          100          144          268          373          285          184          184          132          311         296         106
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the Coast Guard examined the operation of the S.R. 74 Bridge,
at AIWW mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach located just south of the
Figure Eight Swing Bridge. The S.R. 74 Bridge provides vessel openings
on the hour between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., except that from 7 a.m. to 11
a.m. on the third and fourth Saturday in September of every year, the
draw need not open for vessels due to the Triathlon run. The proposed
change would allow pleasure vessels to proceed safely through each of
these bridges without delay.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.821(a)(3) by requiring
openings of the draw every hour on the half hour for the passage of
pleasure vessels. At all times, the draw will continue to open on
signal for commercial vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. We reached
this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a
minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge; mariners of
recreational vessels can plan their transits in accordance with the
scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays and recreational vessels
that can safely transit under the bridge while the draw span is in a
closed position may do so at any time.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule could affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational
vessels needing to transit through the bridge.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because recreational vessels that
can safely transit under the bridge while the draw span is in a closed
position may do so at any time. Also, other mariners of recreational
vessels can plan their trips in accordance with the scheduled bridge
openings to minimize delays.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under section 2.B.2. Figure 2-1,
paragraph 32(e), of the Instruction and neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. This rule
involves the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. No
environmental analysis checklist is required. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

    2. Revise Sec.  117.821(a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.821  Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Albermarle Sound to
Sunset Beach.

* * * * *
    (3) Figure Eight Swing Bridge, mile 278.1, at Scotts Hill, NC, the
draw need only open every hour on the half hour.
* * * * *

    Dated: February 4, 2009.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-3561 Filed 2-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE 40 CFR 60 Subpart EE New Source Performance Standard ( NSPS) for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR for NSPS, Subpart EE, Standards of Performance for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture. 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The NSPS for Surface Coating of Metal Furniture were proposed on November 28, 1980 and promulgated on October 29, 1982. These standards apply to each metal furniture surface coating operation in which organic coatings are applied ( greater than 3,842 liters of coating per year) that commence construction, modification or reconstruction after November 28, 1980. Approximately 553 sources are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that 30 sources per year will become subject to the standard while an equal number will go off line during this time period. It is further assumed that there is an average of four affected facilities per plant. Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOCs) are the pollutants regulated under this subpart, and this information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart EE. Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make initial reports when a source becomes subject, conduct and report on a performance test, demonstrate and report on continuous monitor performance, and maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility. Semiannual reports of excess emissions are required. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance; and are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS. The record keeping and reporting requirements specific to surface coating of metal furniture facilities are detailed in section 4( b) " Information Requested" of this supporting statement. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least 2 years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. The total cost of this ICR will be $ 3,480,542 ( labor costs, $ 2,360,542, plus capital and O& M costs, $ 1,120,000, times 3 years) over the next three years. All reports are sent to the delegated State or Local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect: . . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which 2 ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated [ Section 111( a)( l)]. The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years. In addition, Section 114( a) States that: . . . the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to ( A) establish and maintain such records, ( B) make such reports, ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods ( in accordance with such methods at such locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe), and ( D) sample such emissions, ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical, ( F) submit compliance certifications, and ( G) provide such other information as he may reasonably require. In the Administrator's judgment, VOC emissions from surface coating of metal furniture cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part ( 60 subpart EE.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data Surface coating of metal furniture at facilities causes the emission of VOCs. The standards rely on the capture and/ or reduction of VOCs emissions by control technology. The control of emissions of VOCs from surface coating of metal furniture requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the standard is being met and, if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. EPA reduced the reporting frequency for this information from quarterly to semiannually in a December 1990 Federal Register notice. The reduction in reporting frequency was respondent to the Office of Management and Budget's previous questions regarding the need for quarterly versus semiannual reporting. The information generated by the monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment and achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, record keeping, and reporting is necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from record keeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court. 3 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The record keeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart EE. If the standard has not been delegated the information is sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or Local Agency. If a State or Local Agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement the Federal Regulation, a copy of the report submitted to the State or Local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal Standard. Therefore, no duplication exists. 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on January 5, 1999. 3( c) Consultations No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register. 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and record keeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease. 3( e) General Guidelines None of the reporting or record keeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart EE or otherwise pertinent to this request violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6. 3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). 3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or record keeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part Subpart EE or otherwise pertinent to this request contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents of the record keeping and reporting requirements are facilities which conduct surface coating of metal furniture subject to NSPS Subpart EE ( SIC Codes 2514, 2522, 2531, and 2542) that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after November 28, 1980. 4 4( b) Information Requested ( I) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart EE. Records are required to be retained for two years.

Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements Notification of construction/ reconstruction 60.7( a)( 1)

Notification of anticipated startup 60.7( a)( 2)

Notification of actual startup 60.7( a)( 3)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system 60.7( a)( 5)

Notification of a physical or operational change. 60.7( a)( 4)

Record startup, shutdown, malfunction of affected facility, control device, or CMS 60.7( b)

Excess emissions report 60.7( c), 60.315( b) 1 Report on initial performance test results 60.8( a), 60.315( a)

Notification of initial performance test 60.8( d)

Maintain daily records of incinerator combustion temperature, or amounts of solvent recovered. 60.315 ( c)

Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity, or for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber.

Perform initial performance test, and repeat performance tests.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information. 5 Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information 5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the information required under 40 CFR Subpart EE:  Observes initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary  Reviews notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry  Audits facility records  Inputs, analyzes, and maintains data in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) database. 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. Information contained in the reports is entered into the AIRS database which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AIRS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AIRS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by Local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data. The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years. 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The record keeping and reporting requirements consider the capabilities and resources available for small entities to complete and maintain the appropriate records. The metal furniture surface coating industry is dominated by businesses with less 500 employees. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. Although the record keeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses, the Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses. Any metal furniture surface coating operation that uses less than 3,842 liters of coating ( as applied) per year and keeps purchase or inventory records or other data necessary to substantiate annual coating usage is exempt from all record keeping and reporting ( and all provisions) of this regulation. 5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown on Table 1 . 6 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for each of the record keeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory under 40 CFR Part 60, subpart EE. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these record keeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 101,070 ( total from industry table  Table 1) burden hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received. 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses labor rates of $ 23.80 from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1998, Table 2: Employment Costs for Civilian Workers by Occupational and Industry Group. The rates are from column 1: Total compensation. The record keeping and reporting requirements in NSPS subpart EE were designed to be performed by technical staff. ( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards are labor and CEMS. The capital start up costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the standard. The capital start up costs for this regulation are $ 114,000 dollars. The annual operations and maintenance costs are $ 1,006,000 dollars. This is based on 553 existing sources multiplied by $ 1,820 for upkeep of the monitoring device. The total respondent costs have been calculated on the addition of the capital start up costs and the annual operations and maintenance costs. The average annual burden for capital and operations and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 1,120,000 dollars. ( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Monitoring device annual O& M costs ($) Continuous monitor For 1 unit = $ 1,820 for control device or temperature or feed rate monitor 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AIRS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program. The average annual Federal Government cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 50,938 ( from table 2). This cost is based on an average wage of a GS10 step 1 employee rate. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Agency Burden. 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The number of existing sources subject to NSPS Subpart EE, Surface Coating of Metal 7 Furniture is 553. There are no new sources ( net) expected to become subject to the regulation in the next three years. The total annual labor costs are $ 2,360,542 ( details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Industry Burden), and total annual capital start up, and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 1,120,000. 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables Please see the attached tables. 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment. This decrease in burden is due to more accurate estimates of existing and anticipated new sources.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, OP Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137), 401 M St., S. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number ( 0649.06), and OMB control number ( 2060 0106) in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register: March 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 59)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14097-14099]
[DOCID:fr30mr09-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0284; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-016-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models Dornier
228-100, Dornier 228-101, Dornier 228-200, Dornier 228-201, Dornier
228-202, and Dornier 228-212 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    The manufacturer reported findings of missing primer on the
internal of the elevator and rudder of aircraft S/N 8200. The
aircraft S/N 8200 was with RUAG for maintenance purposes.
Investigation performed by RUAG showed that the paint removal
procedure for the rudder and elevator was changed from a paint
stripping with brush and scraper to a procedure where the parts were
submerged in a tank filled with hot liquid stripper. The stripper is
called TURCO 5669 from Henkel Surface Technologies. The stripping
process is described in the Technical Process Bulletin No. 238799
dated 09/01/1999. This paint stripping process change was not
communicated to and not approved by the TC-Holder.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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 20590, 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; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0284;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-016-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On April 4, 2008, we issued AD 2008-08-15, Amendment 39-15467 (73
FR 21220; April 21, 2008). That AD required actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2008-08-15, we have received new MCAI that
changes the applicability and accomplishment instructions.
    The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority
for Germany, has issued AD D-2007-350R1, dated January 30, 2009
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The manufacturer reported findings of missing primer on the
internal of the elevator and rudder of aircraft S/N 8200. The
aircraft S/N 8200 was with RUAG for maintenance purposes.
Investigation performed by RUAG showed that the paint removal
procedure for the rudder and elevator was changed from a paint
stripping with brush and scraper to a procedure where the parts were
submerged in a tank filled with hot liquid stripper. The stripper is
called TURCO 5669 from Henkel Surface Technologies. The stripping
process is described in the Technical Process Bulletin No. 238799
dated 09/01/1999. This paint stripping process change was not
communicated to and not approved by the TC-Holder.

The MCAI requires a detailed visual inspection of the inner structure
of the rudder and elevator for signs of corrosion, de-bonded primer
(yellow-green), and any deviation of surface protection. If the
inspection results show corrosion beyond the acceptable level or areas
with de-bonded primer, the inspection results have to be reported to
RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH for further decisions. If necessary,
repair the affected parts in accordance with the applicable repair
instruction obtained from RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No.
SB-228-270, Rev. No. 1, dated November 28, 2008. The actions described
in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
will affect 17 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $4,080, or $240 per product.
    We have no way of determining the number of airplanes or the
associated costs of any follow-on repairs or replacements that might be
required by this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15467 (73 FR
21220; April 21, 2008), and adding the following new AD:

DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2009-0284; Directorate
Identifier 2009-CE-016-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 29, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-08-15, Amendment 39-15467 (73 FR
21220; April 21, 2008).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dornier 228-100, Dornier 228-101, Dornier
228-200, Dornier 228-201, Dornier 228-202, and Dornier 228-212
airplanes, all serial numbers, that:
    (1) Are certificated in any category; and
    (2) Have had the rudder and/or elevator replaced or repaired at
Fairchild Dornier or RUAG between the year 2000 and 2005. The
concerned rudder and elevator part numbers and serial numbers are
listed on page 7 of RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228
Service Bulletin No. SB-228-270, Rev. No. 1, dated November 28,
2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 51: Standard
Practices/Structures.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    The manufacturer reported findings of missing primer on the
internal of the elevator and rudder of aircraft S/N 8200. The
aircraft S/N 8200 was with RUAG for maintenance purposes.
Investigation performed by RUAG showed that the paint removal
procedure for the rudder and elevator was changed from a paint
stripping with brush and scraper to a procedure where the parts were
submerged in a tank filled with hot liquid stripper. The stripper is
called TURCO 5669 from Henkel Surface Technologies. The stripping
process is described in the Technical Process Bulletin No. 238799
dated 09/01/1999. This paint stripping process change was not
communicated to and not approved by the TC-Holder.

Corrosion damage can occur through insufficient surface protection.
Consequently, the MCAI requires a detailed visual inspection of the
inner structure of the rudder and elevator for signs of corrosion,
de-bonded primer (yellow-green), and any deviation of surface
protection. If the inspection results show corrosion beyond the
acceptable level or areas with de-bonded primer, the inspection
results have to be reported to RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH for
further decisions. If necessary, repair the affected parts in
accordance with the applicable repair instruction obtained from RUAG
Aerospace Services GmbH.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed visual inspection on the inner structure of the rudder and
elevator for signs of corrosion, debonded primer (yellow-green), and
any other deviation of surface protection following RUAG Aerospace
Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service Bulletin No. SB-228-270, Rev.
No. 1, dated November 28, 2008.
    (2) If you find corrosion or areas with debonded primer as a
result of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD,
before further flight, do the following:
    (i) Report the inspection results to RUAG Aerospace Services
GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231 Wessling,
Federal Republic of Germany, telephone: +49 (0) 8153-30-2280; fax:
+49 (0) 8153-30-3030 and request FAA-approved repair instructions
following RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin No. SB-228-270, Rev. No. 1, dated November 28, 2008.
    (ii) Repair corrosion following FAA-approved repair instructions
obtained from RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI German AD D-2007-350R1, dated January 30,
2009; and RUAG Aerospace Defence Technology Dornier 228 Service
Bulletin No. SB-228-270, Rev. No. 1, dated November 28, 2008, for
related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 24, 2009.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-6984 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P