[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13127-13129]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1141; Special Conditions No. 25-710A-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X Airplanes;
Non-Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Battery Installations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions, amendment.

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

SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued for non-
rechargeable lithium-ion battery installations on the Dassault Aviation
(Dassault) Model Falcon 6X airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium-ion
batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the
state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport-category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault on March 9, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nazih Khaouly, AIR-623, Aircraft
Systems Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th
Street, Des Moines, Washington, 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 1, 2012, Dassault applied for special conditions for non-
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries installed in the Model Falcon 5X
airplane. Special conditions were issued for that design on January 16,
2018 (83 FR 2032). However, Dassault has decided not to release an
airplane under the model designation Falcon 5X, instead choosing to
change that model designation to Falcon 6X.
    In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault
extended the type certificate application date for its Model Falcon 5X
airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This amendment to the original
special conditions reflects the model-name change. This airplane is a
twin-engine business jet with seating for 19 passengers and a maximum
takeoff weight of 77,460 pounds. The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
design remains unchanged from the Model Falcon 5X in all material
respects other than different engines.
    The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable
lithium-ion battery installations on the Dassault Model Falcon 6X
airplane. The FAA's design standards in title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane
with non-rechargeable lithium-ion batteries.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault must show that the
Model Falcon 6X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as
amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-146.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the airplane model
for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model
be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature: Installation of non-
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries.
    For the purpose of these special conditions, the FAA refers to a
battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of
the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or
hardware inside or

outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and
packaging.

Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of
batteries in transport-category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations
(CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that
established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification
basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently
in Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium-ion
batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology
considered when these requirements were codified. Non-rechargeable
lithium-ion batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane
systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes
and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs
introduce failure modes that require unique design considerations, such
as provisions for thermal management.
    In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable
lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22,
2014, which is available at https://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-
036.pdf, describes these events.
    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium-ion
battery in an emergency-locator transmitter installation demonstrated
unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents
Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event. These
events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium-ion
batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these
energy-storage technologies.
    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-
SC, in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573), applicable to Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation for the Model GVI airplane. Those were the first
special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium-ion
battery installations. In that document, the FAA explained its decision
to make those special conditions effective on April 22, 2017, one year
after publication in the Federal Register. In those special conditions,
the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium-ion
battery special conditions to design changes on other airplane makes
and models applied for after this same date.
    Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that
each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium-ion battery be
designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition
no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special
condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation
of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in
temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.
    Special condition nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-
rechargeable lithium-ion battery and its cells are designed to
eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain
number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control
of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are
intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.
    Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.
    Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable-fluid
fire-protection requirements of Sec.  25.863 apply to non-rechargeable
lithium-ion battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to
areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable-fluid leakage
from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium-ion batteries contain
an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.
    Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable
lithium-ion battery installation not damage surrounding structure or
adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids
or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more
severe failure condition.
    While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases,
special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6
requires that each non-rechargeable lithium-ion battery installation
have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure
or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery
installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual
cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the
same, but the requirements are independent and address different
hazards.
    These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium-ion
battery installations in lieu of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at
Amendment 25-123. Sections 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-
123 remain in effect for other battery installations.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Final Special Conditions, Request for Comment
Special Conditions No. 25-710-SC for the Dassault Model Falcon 5X
airplane, which was published in the Federal Register on January 16,
2018 (83 FR 2032). No comments were received, and the special
conditions are adopted as proposed, with amendments.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model
Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change
to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply
to that model as well.
    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes
applied for after the effective date.
    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to
previously certified non-rechargeable lithium-ion battery installations
where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the
installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants.
Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium-ion battery
installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations
approved for certification projects applied for on or before the
effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a
change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety
characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions
also are not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-
rechargeable lithium-ion battery installations that are affected by a
change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The
FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because
the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter
these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X
airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Battery Installations

    In lieu of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123,
each non-rechargeable lithium-ion battery installation must:
    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures
under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and
explosion.
    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining,
uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.
    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or
as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities
within the airplane.
    4. Meet the requirements of Sec.  25.863.
    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment,
or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in
such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.
    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane
structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can
generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.
    7. Have a failure-sensing-and-warning system to alert the
flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.
    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to
determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is
required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note: A battery system consists of the battery and any
protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or
outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and
packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a
``battery'' and ``battery system'' are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 3, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-04935 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78714-78715]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2001-E-0027]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; ANGIOMAX

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for ANGIOMAX and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the

Director of Patents and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted, as well as any time that may have occurred before the
patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory
review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing
phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA approved for marketing the human drug product ANGIOMAX
(bivalirudin). ANGIOMAX is indicated for use as an anticoagulant in
patients with unstable angina undergoing percutaneous transluminal
coronary angioplasty. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and
Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for
ANGIOMAX (U.S. Patent No. 5,196,404) from The Medicines Company, and
the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in
determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated September 6, 2001, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark
Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review
period, that the approval of ANGIOMAX represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product, and that the patent term
restoration application was untimely within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
section 156(d)(1).
    On August 3, 2010, in The Medicines Company v. David Kappos et al.,
Civil Action No. 01:10-cv-286, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, ordered the United
States Patent and Trademark Office to consider The Medicines Company's
patent term restoration application for ANGIOMAX to have been timely
filed. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA
determine the product's regulatory review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
ANGIOMAX is 3,665 days. Of this time, 2,576 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 1,089 days
occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived
from the following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: December 5, 1990. The applicant claims November 2, 1990, as
the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became
effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date
was December 5, 1990, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: December
23, 1997. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for ANGIOMAX (NDA 20-873) was submitted on December
23, 1997.
    3. The date the application was approved: December 15, 2000. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 20-873 was approved on
December 15, 2000.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,773 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by February 14, 2011. Furthermore, any interested
person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the
applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory
review period by June 14, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.
    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available
on regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2010-31583 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 154 (Monday, August 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48111-48113]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16672]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0363; FRL-10012-84-Region 6]

Findings of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plans Required
for Attainment of the 2010 1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to find that Texas has failed to submit State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) to satisfy certain nonattainment area planning
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 1-hour primary
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). The purpose for the development and implementation of a
nonattainment area SIP is to provide for attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable following the designation of an area as
nonattainment. This action establishes certain CAA deadlines for the
EPA to impose sanctions if Texas does not submit a complete SIP for
each nonattainment area addressing the outstanding requirements and for
the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address
any outstanding SIP requirements.

DATES: This action is effective on September 9, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
document should be addressed to Robert Imhoff, EPA Region 6, Air and
Radiation Division, by telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    Section 553 of the APA, Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined
that there is good cause for making this final agency action without
prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA
judgment is involved in making findings of failure to submit SIPs, or
elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no
submission to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures
are unnecessary to take this action. The EPA finds that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0363. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Region 6 office will be closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed above if
you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the
docket.

C. How is the preamble organized?

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
    C. How is the preamble organized?
II. Background
III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit
IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for State That Failed to Make a
Nonattainment Area SIP Submittal
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    M. Judicial Review

II. Background

    In June 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met when
the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-
hour average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with Appendix T of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40
CFR) part 50. See 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On June 30, 2016, the EPA signed
the final action designating 61 areas as part of the second round of
area designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (published at 81 FR
45039, July 12, 2016).\1\ On November 29, 2016, the EPA supplemented
its Round 2 designations by signing a supplemental final action that
included nonattainment designations for the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS for portions of Rusk and Panola Counties, portions
of Freestone and Anderson Counties, and a portion of Titus County
(``Round 2 Supplement'') (81 FR 89870, December 13, 2016). These latter
area designations had an effective date of January 12, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA completed its first round of initial area
designations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS on
August 5, 2013, with an effective date of October 4, 2013. Under a
court order issued on March 2, 2015, the EPA is required to complete
designations in three additional rounds of designations. The EPA
must complete the final, Round 4 designations for the remaining
undesignated areas of the country by no later than December 31,
2020. The findings in this document apply only to those areas that
were designated as part of Round 2 on December 13, 2016, and where,
as of signature of this action, Texas failed to submit required
complete plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS are
subject to the general nonattainment area planning requirements of CAA
section 172 and to the SO2-specific planning requirements of
subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192). All
components of the SO2 part D nonattainment area SIP,
including the emissions inventory, attainment demonstration, reasonably
available control measures (RACM) including reasonably available
control technology (RACT), enforceable emission limitations and control
measures, reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, nonattainment new
source review (NNSR), and contingency measures, are

due to the EPA within 18 months of the effective date of designation of
an area under CAA section 191. Thus, the nonattainment area SIPs for
the Texas areas designated effective January 12, 2017, were due on July
13, 2018. These SIPs were required to demonstrate that their respective
areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than 5 years from the effective date of designation, or by
January 12, 2022.

III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit

    If the EPA finds that a state has failed to make the required SIP
submittal or that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then CAA section
179(a) establishes specific consequences, including the imposition of
mandatory sanctions for the affected area, after a period of time, if
within that period the state does not submit a complete SIP for the
nonattainment area. Additionally, such a finding also triggers an
obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no
later than 2 years after the finding of failure to submit if the
affected state has not submitted, and EPA has not approved, the
required SIP submittal.
    If the EPA has not affirmatively determined that a state has made
the required complete SIP submittal for an area within 18 months of the
effective date of this rulemaking, then, pursuant to CAA section 179(a)
and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section
179(b)(2) will apply in the affected nonattainment area. If the EPA has
not affirmatively determined that the state has made a complete
submission within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed, then
the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected nonattainment
area, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The
sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months after the date of
these findings, the EPA affirmatively determines that the affected
state has made a complete SIP submittal addressing the deficiency for
which the finding was made. Additionally, if the state makes the
required SIP submittal and the EPA takes final action to approve the
submittal within 2 years of the effective date of these findings, the
EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP for the affected nonattainment
area.

IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for State That Failed To Make a
Nonattainment Area SIP Submittal

    As of the date of signature of this action, Texas failed to make
complete SIP submittals required under part D of Title 1 of the CAA by
July 13, 2018, for the three areas designated nonattainment effective
January 12, 2017. The EPA is, therefore, issuing Texas a finding of
failure to submit for the following three nonattainment areas: Portions
of Anderson-Freestone Counties, Texas; portions of Rusk-Panola Counties
Texas; and a portion of Titus County, Texas.

 Table 1--2010 1-Hour Primary SO2 NAAQS Nonattainment Areas Affected by
                   These Findings of Failure To Submit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                          Nonattainment area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas..................................  Anderson-Freestone
                                          Counties(p),* Rusk-Panola
                                          Counties (p), and Titus County
                                          (p).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (p) indicates partial county.

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental risks
addressed by this action will not have disproportionately high or
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment under the
SO2 NAAQS. The purpose of this rule is to make a finding
that Texas failed to submit the required SIPs to provide for timely
attainment of the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS, which will
result in certain CAA-required deadlines for actions to provide for
such attainment. In finding that Texas failed to submit a complete SIP
that satisfies the nonattainment area plan requirements under section
172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and
192) for the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS, this action does not
adversely affect the level of protection provided for human health or
the environment. Rather, it is intended that the actions and deadlines
resulting from this notice will in fact lead to greater protection for
United States citizens, including minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations, by ensuring that states meet their statutory obligation to
develop and submit SIPs to ensure that areas make progress toward
attaining the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive Order
13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because it finds that Texas failed to meet the requirement in the CAA
to submit SIPs under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of
the CAA (sections 191 and 192) for the SO2 NAAQS.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. This final rule does not
establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is
already required by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the
CAA for states to submit SIPs under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D
of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192) which address the
statutory requirements that apply to areas designated as nonattainment
for the SO2 NAAQS.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The rule is
a finding that Texas has not made the necessary SIP submission for
certain nonattainment areas to meet the requirements of part D of title
I of the CAA.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on Texas, on the relationship between the
national government and Texas, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule finds that Texas has failed to
complete the requirement in the CAA to submit SIPs under section 172
and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA (sections 191 and 192)
for the SO2 NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to
submit an implementation plan under section 172 or under subpart 5 of
part D of Title I of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is a finding that Texas has failed to submit a complete SIP
that satisfies the nonattainment area plan requirements under section
172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of the CAA and does not directly
or disproportionately affect children.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations. In finding that Texas has failed to submit a
complete SIP that satisfies the nonattainment area planning
requirements under section 172 and subpart 5 of part D of Title I of
the CAA, this action does not adversely affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the environment.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

M. Judicial Review

    This final action consists of a Finding of Failure to Submit
certain required SIP provisions for the three identified areas in Texas
designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. In
accordance with the CAA Section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit within 60 days from the date this final
action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation
plans, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 28, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-16672 Filed 8-5-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3422-3423]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00711]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0390; FRL-9375-6]

Notice of Receipt of Pesticide Products; Registration
Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing an active ingredient not included in any currently
registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice
of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the EPA File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of
this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person is listed at the end
of each registration application summary and may be contacted by
telephone, email, or mail. Mail correspondence to the Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.

As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's name,
division, and mail code.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing an active ingredient not included in any currently
registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA
section 3(c)(4), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of
these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications. For actions being evaluated under the Agency's public
participation process for registration actions, there will be an
additional opportunity for a 30-day public comment period on the
proposed decision. Please see the Agency's public participation Web
site for additional information on this process (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registration-public-involvement.html). EPA
received the following applications to register pesticide products
containing an active ingredient not included in any currently
registered products:
    1. EPA File Symbol: 71840-RL. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0962. Applicant: Becker Underwood, Inc., 801 Dayton Ave., P.O. Box 667,
Ames, IA 50010. Active Ingredient: Trichoderma fertile strain JM41R at
96.0%. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Manufacturing use.
Contact: Jeannine Kausch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. EPA File Symbol: 71840-RU. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0962. Applicant: Becker Underwood, Inc., 801 Dayton Ave., P.O. Box 667,
Ames, IA 50010. Active Ingredient: Trichoderma fertile strain JM41R at
7.7%. Proposed Use: For control of diseases (e.g., Sclerotinia and
Fusarium) found in soil and growing media that is used in greenhouses
and nurseries. Contact: Jeannine Kausch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: January 8, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-00711 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20505-20508]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0908; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-067-AD;
Amendment 39-16987; AD 2012-06-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires replacing the
power control relays for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps with
new relays having a ground fault interrupter (GFI) feature. This AD
also requires an electrical bonding resistance measurement for certain
GFI relays to verify that certain bonding requirements are met. This AD
also requires, for certain airplanes, an inspection to ensure that
certain screws are properly installed, and installing longer screws if
necessary. This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the fuel
pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition
source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective May 10, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document 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: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that
would apply to the specified products. That SNPRM was published in the
Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 28). The original NPRM (74
FR 53436, October 19, 2009) proposed to require replacing the power
control relays for the fuel boost pumps and override pumps with new
relays having a GFI feature. The SNPRM proposed to add an electrical
bonding resistance measurement for certain GFI relays to verify that
certain bonding requirements are met. The SNPRM also proposed to add,
for certain airplanes, an inspection to ensure that certain screws are
properly installed, and installing longer screws if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM (76
FR 28, January 3, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment. Boeing
concurs with the contents of the SNPRM.

Request To Permit Incorporation of Universal Fault Interrupter (UFI) as
a Means of Compliance

    American Airlines (AA) and TDG Aerospace requested that we revise
the SNPRM (76 FR 28, January 3, 2011) to allow incorporation of the
previously-approved Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01950LA,
issued January 17, 2007, as an approved means of compliance for
providing fault protection for the center override fuel pumps. The
commenters stated that the

UFI, in accordance with STC ST01950LA, performs as a GFI for the center
override pumps, providing equivalent or better protection for detection
and prevention of ground fault anomalies. The commenters added that the
FAA has acknowledged that the UFI provides transient fault detection
and steady state fault detection; and in response to any of the above
electrical faults, the UFI will de-energize the airplane
electromechanical relay to shut off the fuel pump. TDG stated that
Boeing Model 757 airplanes utilize the same fuel pump part number for
the center tank fuel boost pump application as the Boeing Model 737NG
airplane. TDG Aerospace STC ST01950LA for Model 757 airplanes utilizes
the same UFI part number as STC ST02076LA for Model 737NG airplanes
that have the UFI as an acceptable means of compliance through the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) approval process
under Docket No. FAA-2010-1199 (AD 2011-20-07, Amendment 39-16818 (76
FR 60710, September 30, 2011)). TDG Aerospace pointed out that a large
number of Model 757 operators have already incorporated STC ST01950LA
as a means of compliance with FAA AD 2008-11-07, Amendment 39-15529 (73
FR 30755, May 29, 2008).
    We partially agree. We have been informed that referring to an STC
now violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations (1 CFR
part 51) for approval of optional materials ``incorporated by
reference'' in rules. However, we have added paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to
this AD to specify that installation of TDG Aerospace UFIs to the
center tank override pumps must be done in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA. We have also added ``Note 1
to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD'' to specify that additional
guidance on installing TDG Aerospace UFIs can be found in TDG Aerospace
STC ST01950LA.

Request To Forego Screw Length Inspections and Electrical Bonding
Checks for Center Override Pumps

    AA requested that we exempt airplanes that have the UFI installed
for the center override pumps from performing screw length inspections
and electrical bonding checks that are specific to the GFI
installation. The commenter stated that the UFI installation under STC
ST01950LA already complies with proper grip length. The commenter also
stated that the UFI STC requires the bonding check of the installed UFI
bracket to each panel.
    We disagree with the commenter's request because the inspection
requirements of paragraph (h) of the final rule clearly identify that
the screw grip length inspections and GFI bonding checks are applicable
only to airplanes that have Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-28A0078
or 757-28A0079, both dated July 16, 2008, accomplished before the
effective date of the AD. Airplanes that have incorporated the UFI
under STC ST01950LA on their center tank override pumps do not need to
perform these additional inspections required by paragraph (h) of this
AD. No changes have been made to this AD in this regard.

Request To Correct Typographical Errors in Service Bulletins

    AA and United Airlines requested correction of a number of
typographical errors in Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0078 and 757-
28A0079, both Revision 1, both dated August 24, 2010.
    AA stated that typographical errors in Boeing Service Bulletin 757-
28A0078, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2010, mistakenly refer to the P37
panel as ``P33.'' In addition, AA and United Airlines stated that those
service bulletins mistakenly refer to the standard wiring practices
manual rather than the standard overhaul practices manual (SOPM) for
the P33 and P37 panel identification.
    United Airlines requested that paragraph (i) of the SNPRM (76 FR
28, January 3, 2011) be corrected to identify paragraph 3.B.12.l.(5) of
Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
757-28A0078, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2010, and not the currently
referenced paragraph 3.B.12.i.(5). Boeing Service Bulletin Information
Notice 757-28A0078 IN 02, dated October 6, 2010, identifies paragraph
3.B.12.l.(5) as the impacted paragraph of the service bulletins.
    We agree that the typographical errors needed to be corrected.
Boeing has released Service Bulletins 757-28A0078 and 757-28A0079, both
Revision 2, both dated January 11, 2012, which correct typographical
errors in the calculations in paragraphs 3.B.12.m.(5) and 3.B.12.m.(6)
of Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0078 and 757-28A0079, both Revision
1, both dated August 24, 2010. These service bulletin revisions also
clarify certain actions and correct other typographical errors.
Paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this AD have been updated to refer to
Boeing Service Bulletins 757-28A0078 and 757-28A0079, both Revision 2,
both dated January 11, 2012. Paragraph (i) of the SNPRM (76 FR 28,
January 3, 2011) has been removed from this final rule. We have also
added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to allow credit for accomplishing
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0078 or 757-28A0079, both Revision 1,
both dated August 24, 2010, before the effective date of this AD.

Request To Allow Identification of P33 and P37 Panels ``Outside the
Scope of the AD''

    AA recommended that we allow the identification of the P33 and P37
panels as a statement ``outside the scope of the AD.'' AA stated that
the GFI physical differences would be enough to distinguish between the
old and new relay types. The commenter also stated that post-
modification parts are illustrated in the revisions to operators'
manuals, in the illustrated parts catalog, and airplane maintenance
manual. The commenter pointed out that the lack of panel labeling would
not affect the level of safety.
    We disagree with the commenter's recommendation to change the final
rule to address this issue. The requirement for panel identification
specified in Step 3 in Figure 1 and Figure 2 of Boeing Service
Bulletins 757-28A0078 and 757-28A0079, both Revision 1, both dated
August 24, 2010, refers to identifying the P33 and P37 panels to show
that this change was accomplished. Note (a) that accompanies the Step 3
instructions in those service bulletins calls for marking the panels
with a unique marking under SOPM 20-50-10, which points to the
incorporation of the changes under the accomplishment instructions of
those service bulletins. It does not call for a change to the P33 and
P37 panel part number. No change has been made to the AD in this
regard.

Explanation of Changes to Final Rule

    We have restructured paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify the
locations for replacing the power control relays. Paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD specifies the ``main tank fuel boost pumps,'' and paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD specifies the ``center tank override fuel boost
pumps.''
    In addition, we have removed the Paperwork Reduction Act Burden
Statement paragraph since no reporting is required in this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the 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 (76 FR 28, January 3, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (76 FR 28, January 3, 2011).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 696 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Cost per
             Action                  Labor cost       Parts cost        product        Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement, measurement, and    7 work-hours x            $12,600         $13,195  Up to $9,183,720.\1\
 operational test.                $85 per hour =
                                  $595.
Inspection of screw              1 work-hour x $85              $0             $85  $59,160.
 installation and bonding         per hour = $85.
 resistance measurement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cost for U.S. operators depends on airplane configuration.

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary installation
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this installation:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Action                              Labor cost               Parts cost      Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of longer screw...............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                 $0                $85
                                              $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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-06-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16987; Docket No. FAA-
2009-0908; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-067-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 10, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, -
200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph
(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes:
Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0078, Revision 2, dated January 11,
2012.
    (2) For Model 757-300 series airplanes: Boeing Service Bulletin
757-28A0079, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the fuel
pumps caused by electrical arcing that could introduce an ignition
source in the fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable fuel
vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement, Measurements, and Test

    For airplanes on which the actions specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-28A0078, dated July 16, 2008, or 757-28A0079,
dated July 16, 2008, have not been accomplished before the effective
date of this

AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Replace the power control relays for the main tank fuel
boost pumps with new relays having a ground fault interrupter (GFI)
feature; do applicable electrical bonding resistance measurements
between the GFI relays and their installation panel to verify that
applicable bonding requirements are met; and do an operational test
to ensure correct operation; as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
757-28A0078, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model 757-200,
-200CB, and -200PF series airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin
757-28A0079, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model 757-300
series airplanes). Do all actions in accordance with Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0078,
Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -
200PF series airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0079,
Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model 757-300 series
airplanes).
    (2) Replace the power control relays for the center tank
override fuel boost pumps with new relays having a GFI feature, in
accordance with the actions required in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Replace the power control relays with new relays having a
GFI feature; do applicable electrical bonding resistance
measurements between the GFI relays and their installation panel to
verify that applicable bonding requirements are met; and do an
operational test to ensure correct operation; as specified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 757-28A0078, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012
(for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes); or Boeing
Service Bulletin 757-28A0079, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012
(for Model 757-300 series airplanes). Do all actions in accordance
with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 757-28A0078, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model
757-200, -200CB, and -200PF series airplanes), or Boeing Service
Bulletin 757-28A0079, Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model
757-300 series airplanes).
    (ii) Install and maintain TDG Aerospace universal fault
interrupters (UFIs), in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD: Guidance on
installing TDG Aerospace UFIs can be found in Supplemental Type
Certificate ST01950LA (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--
Guidance--Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/196ec7e864607b5b862573c5007cb3b5/
$FILE/ST01950LA.pdf).

(h) Inspection

    For airplanes on which the actions specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-28A0078, dated July 16, 2008, or 757-28A0079,
dated July 16, 2008, have been accomplished before the effective
date of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this
AD, do a general visual inspection to verify that each GFI
installation screw has enough grip length to hold the screws in each
nut plate, and do applicable electrical bonding resistance
measurements between the GFI relays and their installation panel to
verify that applicable bonding requirements are met. If the screw
does not have enough grip length, before further flight, install a
longer screw. Do all actions in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0078,
Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model 757-200, -200CB, and -
200PF series airplanes); or Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0079,
Revision 2, dated January 11, 2012 (for Model 757-300 series
airplanes).

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by this
AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of
this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0078 or 757-28A0079,
both Revision 1, both dated August 24, 2010.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Georgios Roussos,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle
ACO, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Or, email information to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information:
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0078, Revision 2, dated
January 11, 2012.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 757-28A0079, Revision 2, dated
January 11, 2012.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 9, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-6642 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 35019]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14485-000; Project No. 14485-000]

FFP Project 58, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 1, 2013, FFP Project 58, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project at
the Kentucky River Lock and Dam 6 located on the Kentucky
River near the town of Salvisa in Mercer and Woodford Counties,
Kentucky. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to
grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during
the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit
holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter
upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express
permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 465-
foot-long, 34-foot-high timber crib dam; (2) a reservoir with a surface
area of 940 acres and a storage capacity of 16,310 acre-feet; (3) a
300-foot-long, 160-foot-wide intake channel with a 70-foot-long
retaining wall; (4) a 140-foot-long, 70-foot-wide powerhouse containing
two generating units with a total capacity of 6.0 megawatts; (5) a 180-
foot-long, 130-foot-wide tailrace with a 70-foot-long retaining wall;
(6) a 4.16/34.5 kilo-Volt (kV) substation; (7) a 4.3-mile-long, 34.5 kV
transmission line. The project would have an average annual generation
of 23,700 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114. (978)
283-2822.
    FERC Contact: Chris Casey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
8577.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14485) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 5, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13803 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21114-21117]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07177]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0661; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00737-Q]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Ipeco Pilot and Co-Pilot Seats

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2019-21-06, which applies to certain Ipeco Holdings Limited (Ipeco)
pilot and co-pilot seats. AD 2019-21-06 requires modification and re-
identification of the affected seats, initial and repetitive
inspections of the affected track lock springs and, depending on the
findings, replacement of the track lock springs with a part eligible
for installation. Since the FAA issued AD 2019-21-06, the FAA
determined the need for a mandatory terminating action to the track
lock spring inspections. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of
track lock spring failures occurring on affected seats. This proposed
AD would retain the requirements of AD 2019-21-06. This proposed AD
would also add a mandatory terminating action for the initial and
repetitive inspections of the affected track lock springs. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by May 25, 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-2023-0661; 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 Ipeco service information identified in this NPRM,
contact Ipeco Holdings Limited, Aviation Way, Southend on Sea, SS2 6UN,
United Kingdom; phone: +44 1702 545118; fax: +44 1702 540782; email:
[email protected].
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Kung, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<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-2023-0661; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00737-Q'' 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
the 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 Kevin
Kung, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2019-21-06, Amendment 39-19772 (84 FR 60325,
November 8, 2019) (AD 2019-21-06), for certain Ipeco pilot and co-pilot
seats. AD 2019-21-06 was prompted by an MCAI originated by the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Union. EASA issued EASA AD 2018-0262,
dated December 6, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0262), to correct an unsafe
condition identified as reports of track lock spring failures occurring
on affected seats, including those seats already modified by EASA AD
2016-0256, dated December 16, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0256).
    AD 2019-21-06 requires modification and re-identification of the
affected seats, initial and repetitive inspections of the affected
track lock springs and, depending on the findings, replacement of the
track lock springs with a part

eligible for installation. AD 2019-21-06 also adds additional seat part
numbers to the applicability. The FAA issued AD 2019-21-06 to prevent
unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and landing.

Actions Since AD 2019-21-06 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2019-21-06, the Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA), which is the aviation authority for the United Kingdom (UK) (UK
CAA), superseded EASA AD 2018-0262 and issued UK CAA AD G-2022-0011,
dated June 9, 2022 (UK CAA AD G-2022-0011) (also referred to after this
as the MCAI). The MCAI states that occurrences of track lock spring
failures continued to be reported, including seats already modified, as
required by EASA AD 2016-0256. Consequently, the manufacturer published
revised service information, which specifies instructions for
inspection and replacement, if necessary, of affected track lock
springs. The MCAI partially retains the requirements of EASA AD 2018-
0262, which is superseded. The MCAI maintains the inspection of
affected seats and springs and, depending on the results of the
inspection, replacement of the affected springs from EASA AD 2018-0262.
The MCAI also adds a mandatory terminating action, which requires that
replacement of affected springs and lever, and the installation of a
lever control placard, is accomplished. Track lock spring failures, if
not addressed, could lead to further cases of unexpected movement of
pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and landing, which could result in
reduced control of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0661.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-15,
Issue 2; SB Number 063-25-16, Issue 2; SB Number 063-25-17, Issue 2;
and SB Number 063-25-18, Issue 2; all dated March 8, 2022. These SBs
provide instructions for removal and replacement of the levers and
springs of affected track lock springs and the installation of a lever
control placard.
    This proposed AD would also require Ipeco SB Number 063-25-08,
Revision 00; SB Number 063-25-09, Revision 00; and SB Number 063-25-10,
Revision 00; all dated May 31, 2016, which the Director of the Federal
Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 12,
2017 (82 FR 51552, November 7, 2017).
    This proposed AD would also require Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14,
Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018, which the Director of the Federal
Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 13,
2019 (84 FR 60325, November 8, 2019).
    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 ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2019-
21-06. This proposed AD would also add a mandatory terminating action
for the initial and repetitive inspections of the affected track lock
springs.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 120 pilot and co-pilot seats installed on, but not limited to,
ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that
seats installed on 34 ATR 42 airplanes and seats installed on 21 ATR 72
airplanes will require modification and inspection.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect ATR 42 or ATR 72 flight crew    0.25 work-hours x $85                 $0          $21.25          $2,550
 seats.                                  per hour = $21.25.
Modify ATR 42 or ATR 72 flight crew     2 work-hours x $85 per                56             226          27,120
 seats.                                  hour = $170.
Report results of ATR 42 or ATR 72      1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85          10,200
 inspection.                             hour = $85.
Modify ATR 42 or ATR 72 flight crew     2.5 work-hours x $85 per              56          268.50          32,220
 seats per mandatory terminating         hour = $212.50.
 action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove seat and replace ATR 42 track lock       1.5 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $28         $155.50
 spring.                                         $127.50.
Remove seat and replace ATR 72 track lock       1.50 work-hours x $85 per hour =              28          155.50
 spring.                                         $127.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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 that the 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2019-21-06, Amendment 39-19772 (84
FR 60325, November 8, 2019); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Ipeco Holdings Limited: Docket No. FAA-2023-0661; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00737-Q.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by May 25, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-21-06, Amendment 39-19772 (84 FR 60325,
November 8, 2019); (AD 2019-21-06).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to:
    (i) Ipeco Holdings Limited (Ipeco) pilot and co-pilot seats with
a part number (P/N) listed in Paragraph 1.A., Planning Information,
Tables 1 and 2, of Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-14,
Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018, and
    (ii) Ipeco pilot seat P/N 3A063-0099-01-1 and Ipeco co-pilot
seat P/N 3A063-0100-01-1.
    (2) These seats are installed on, but not limited to, ATR-GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2510, Flight
Compartment Equipment.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of track lock spring failures
occurring on affected seats. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats on takeoff and
landing. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Modification and Re-identification of Seats, Inspections
and Replacement of Track Lock Spring, and Reporting

    This paragraph retains the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2019-21-06, with a revised compliance date for affected seat
inspections and reporting of inspection results.
    (1) For seats that have not installed the track lock spring
modification kit, within two years after December 12, 2017 (the
effective date of AD 2017-22-02), modify and re-identify each
affected pilot and co-pilot seat using the Accomplishment
Instructions of Ipeco SB Number 063-25-08, Revision 00; Ipeco SB
Number 063-25-09, Revision 00; or Ipeco SB Number 063-25-10,
Revision 00; all dated May 31, 2016, as applicable to each affected
seat.
    (2) For all affected seats:
    (i) Within 750 flight hours (FHs) after December 13, 2019 (the
effective date of AD 2019-21-06), and, thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 750 FHs, inspect the track lock spring of each seat in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.2, of
Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018.
    (ii) If, during any inspection as required by paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this AD, any damage on, or incorrect installation of,
any track lock spring is found on the pilot or co-pilot seat, before
further flight, replace both track lock springs of the affected seat
with a part eligible for installation using the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> or <IP_ADDRESS>, as applicable, of Ipeco
SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018.
    (3) Within 30 days after the initial and repetitive inspections,
and thereafter for two years after December 13, 2019 (the effective
date of AD 2019-21-06), send the inspection results, including no
findings, to Ipeco at [email protected].

(h) New Mandatory Terminating Action

    As a mandatory terminating action to the inspections required by
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD, within 12 months after the effective
date of this AD, or at the next Base Maintenance check, whichever
occurs later, modify and re-identify each affected seat in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Ipeco SB Number
063-25-15, Issue 2; SB Number 063-25-16, Issue 2; SB Number 063-25-
17, Issue 2; or SB Number 063-25-18, Issue 2; all dated March 8,
2022, as applicable to each affected seat.

(i) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any pilot or
co-pilot seat identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this AD unless
the seat is modified and re-identified as specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD.

(j) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, ``damage'' includes cracks,
breaks, corrosion, or deformation of the track lock spring.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, ``incorrect installation'' is
installing the track lock spring at an angle or position different
from the angle or position shown in Figures 6 and 7 of Ipeco SB
Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is:
    (i) A modified seat provided, before installation, it has passed
an inspection (no damage is found); and
    (ii) A track lock spring provided that it passed an inspection
(no damage is found).

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the actions required by paragraph
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD if the actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using ATR SB No. ATR42-25-0191, Original
Issue, dated July 4, 2016; ATR SB No. ATR42-25-0191, Revision No.
01, dated July 20, 2016; or ATR SB No. ATR72-25-1157, Revision No.
02, dated March 9, 2017.

(l) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Boston ACO 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
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (n)(2) of this AD. 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.

(n) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to United Kingdom (UK) Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
AD G-2022-0011, dated June 9, 2022, for related information. This UK
CAA AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations under Docket No.
FAA-2023-0661.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Kung,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
[DATE 35 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (i) Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-15, Issue 2, dated
March 8, 2022.
    (ii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-16, Issue 2, dated March 8, 2022.
    (iii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-17, Issue 2, dated March 8, 2022.
    (iv) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-18, Issue 2, dated March 8, 2022.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 13, 2019 (84 FR 60325, November 8, 2019).
    (i) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14,
2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 12, 2017 (82 FR 51552, November 7, 2017).
    (i) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-08, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016.
    (ii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-09, Revision 00, dated May 31, 2016.
    (iii) Ipeco SB Number 063-25-10, Revision 00, dated May 31,
2016.
    (6) For Ipeco service information identified in this AD, contact
Ipeco Holdings Limited, Aviation Way, Southend on Sea, SS2 6UN,
United Kingdom; phone: +44 1702 545118; fax: +44 1702 540782; email:
[email protected].
    (7) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (8) 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 April 1, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-07177 Filed 4-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P