[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44989-44993]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3632; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-023-AD;
Amendment 39-18590; AD 2016-14-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-14-06 for
all Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -
113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -214
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. AD
2014-14-06 required inspecting the aft engine mount retainers for
surface finish, cracks, and failure, and replacement if necessary. This
new AD requires repetitive inspections for damaged, cracked, broken,
and missing aft engine mount retainers, and replacement if necessary.
This AD was prompted by inspection results that have shown that the
main cause of crack initiation in the aft engine mount retainers is the
vibration dynamic effect that affects both retainers, either with
``dull'' or ``bright'' surface finishes. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct failure of retainer brackets of the aft engine mount
and consequent loss of the locking feature of the nuts of the inner and
outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount engine link
no longer being secured to the aft engine mount.

DATES: This AD is effective August 16, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 16,
2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of August
27, 2014 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014).

ADDRESSES: For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com.
    For Goodrich Aerostructures service information identified in this
AD, contact Goodrich Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista, CA
91910-2098; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3632.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3632; 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 (telephone 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2014-14-06, Amendment 39-17901 (79 FR 42655,
July 23, 2014) (``AD 2014-14-06''). AD 2014-14-06 applied to all Model
A318-111 and -112 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115
airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, and -214 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on September 17, 2015 (80 FR 55798) (``the
NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by inspection results that have shown
that the main cause of crack initiation in the aft engine mount
retainers is the vibration dynamic effect that affects both retainers,
either with ``dull'' or ``bright'' surface finishes. The NPRM proposed
to continue to require inspecting the aft engine mount retainers for
surface finish, cracks, and failure, and replacement if necessary. The
NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections for damaged,
cracked broken, and missing aft engine mount retainers, and replacement
if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of
retainer brackets of the aft engine mount and consequent loss of the
locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the
pins will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured
to the aft engine mount.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0021, dated February 13, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    During in-service inspections, several aft engine mount
retainers, fitted on aeroplanes equipped with CFM56-5A/5B engines,
have been found broken. The results of the initial investigations
highlighted that two different types of surface finish had been
applied (respectively bright and dull material finishes), and that
dull finish affects the strength of the retainer with regard to
fatigue properties of the part. The pins which attach the engine
link to the aft mount are secured by two nuts, which do not have a
self-locking feature; this function is provided by the retainer
brackets. In case of failure of the retainer bracket, the locking
feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins is lost; as a
result, these nuts could subsequently become loose.
    In case of full loss of the nuts, there is the potential to also
lose the pins, in which case the aft mount link will no longer be
secured to the aft engine mount. The same locking feature is used
for the three link assemblies of the aft mount.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight loss of an aft mount link, possibly resulting in damage to
the aeroplane and injury to person on the ground.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2013-
0050 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2013_0050_superseded.pdf/AD_2013-0050_1 [which corresponds
to FAA AD 2014-14-06] to require detailed inspections (DET) of the
aft engine mount retainers and the replacement of all retainers with
dull finish with retainers having a bright finish.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, inspection results have shown
that the main cause of crack initiation remains the vibration
dynamic effect that affects both retainers, either with ``dull'' or
``bright'' surface finishes. The non-conforming ``dull'' surface's
pitting is an aggravating factor.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0050, which is superseded, and requires
repetitive DET of all aft engine mount retainers and, depending on
findings [damaged, cracked, broken, or missing retainers], their
replacement.
    This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim action, pending
development and availability of a final solution.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3632.

Comments

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

Request To Use Alternative Inspection Method

    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise paragraph (m) of the
NPRM to approve use of a boroscope with 10X magnification when
performing the inspection of the center aft engine mount inner retainer
as an option to removing the center retainer. DAL stated that this
procedure was allowed by the FAA in Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC) ANM-116-14-423, dated September 16, 2014, for AD 2014-14-06. DAL
stated that this procedure provides an equivalent level of safety since
the detectability of the subject condition using this alternate
inspection method is the same as a detailed visual inspection using 10X
magnification, mirror, and light.
    We disagree with DAL's request. AMOC ANM-116-14-423, dated
September 16, 2014, provides an AMOC for replacing 10X magnification,
mirror, and light with a boroscope with 10X magnification but that AMOC
is not an option to removing the center retainer. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (q)(1) of this AD, we will consider requests
for approval of alternative procedures, if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that the change would provide an acceptable
level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
    We have clarified in paragraph (q)(1)(ii) of this AD that AMOCs
approved previously for AD 2014-14-06, are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD.

Request To Use Later Revisions of Service Information

    DAL requested that we permit use of later approved revisions of the
service information. DAL stated that Airbus has released Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015.
    We partially agree with DAL's request. We do not agree to include
an allowance for later approved revisions of the referenced service
information. When referring to a specific service document in an AD,
using the phrase, ``or later FAA-approved revisions,'' violates the
Office of the Federal Register's regulations for approving materials
that are incorporated by reference. See 1 CFR 51.1(f).
    However, affected operators may request approval to use a later
revision of the referenced service document as an alternative method of
compliance, under the provisions of paragraph (q)(1) of this AD. We
have not changed this AD in this regard.
    We agree to reference to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060,
Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015, in this final rule as the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by
paragraphs (l) and (m) of this AD (referred to as paragraphs (m) and
(n) in the proposed AD).
    We have also redesignated paragraph (l) of the proposed AD to
paragraph (p)(1) of this AD (the paragraph retains existing credit
information) and added new paragraphs (p)(2) and (p)(3) of this AD to
provide provisional credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060,
dated October 9, 2014. For operators to obtain credit for Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014, for the
replacement, operators must use the torque value units applicable to
nut item (14) specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060,
Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015. Those torque value units were
incorrectly stated in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, dated
October 9, 2014.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2015. This service information describes procedures for
inspecting the aft engine mount retainers for surface finish (dull or
bright), for damaged, cracked, broken, or missing retainers, and
replacement.
    Goodrich Aerostructures has issued Service Bulletin RA32071-160,
dated September 18, 2014. This service information describes procedures
for inspecting the aft engine mount inner retainers for cracks or
failure, and replacement.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 922 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2014-14-06, and retained in this AD,
take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
actions that are were required by AD 2014-14-06 is $255 per inspection
cycle per product (for two engines).
    We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD, and 1 work-hour per
product to report inspection findings. The average labor rate is $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD
on U.S. operators to be $862,070, or $935 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost
of $10,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
airplanes that might need these actions.

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 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 current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures

the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses
an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products
identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-14-06, Amendment 39-17901 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014), and adding
the following new AD:

2016-14-09 Airbus: Amendment 39-18590. Docket No. FAA-2015-3632;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-023-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 16, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-14-06, Amendment 39-17901 (79 FR 42655,
July 23, 2014) (``AD 2014-14-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -214 airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by inspection results that have shown that
the main cause of crack initiation in the aft engine mount retainers
is the vibration dynamic effect that affects both retainers, either
with ``dull'' or ``bright'' surface finishes. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct failure of retainer brackets of the aft engine
mount and consequent loss of the locking feature of the nuts of the
inner and outer pins; loss of the pins will result in the aft mount
engine link no longer being secured to the aft engine mount.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2014-14-06, with no changes. Within 3 months after August 27, 2014
(the effective date of AD 2014-14-06): Do a detailed inspection of
the aft engine mount retainers for surface finish (dull or bright),
and for cracks and failure, in accordance with Section 4.2.2,
``Inspection Requirements,'' of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission
(AOT) A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013, except as
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

(h) Retained Exception to Paragraph (g) of This AD, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2014-14-06, with no changes. The actions required by paragraph (g)
of this AD are not required to be done on airplanes with
manufacturer serial numbers 4942 and higher, provided a review of
maintenance records verifies that no aft engine mount retainers have
been replaced since first flight of the airplane.

(i) Retained Repetitive Inspection and Retainer Replacement for Dull
Finish Retainers, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2014-14-06, with no changes. If, during the detailed inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any installed dull finish aft
engine mount retainer is found without cracks and not failed: Do the
actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Within 25 flight cycles after doing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Repeat the detailed inspection specified
in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Within 50 flight cycles after doing the first detailed
inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Replace all dull
finish retainers with new retainers, in accordance with Section
<IP_ADDRESS>, ``Replacement Procedure,'' of Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev.
2, dated February 27, 2013.

(j) Retained Replacement of Cracked or Failed Retainers, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2014-14-06, with no changes. If, during any detailed inspection
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, any installed aft engine
mount retainer is found cracked or failed: Before further flight,
replace all affected aft engine mount retainers with new retainers,
in accordance with Section 4.2.3, ``Replacement Procedure,'' of
Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013.

(k) Retained Parts Prohibition, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2014-14-06, with no changes. As of August 27, 2014 (the effective
date of AD 2014-14-06), no person may install any aft engine mount
retainer with a dull finish on any airplane. The instructions of
Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 2, dated February 27, 2013; or the
Accomplishment Instructions of Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-
146, Rev. 2, dated July 26, 2012; may be used to verify the correct
finish of the part.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    At the latest of the applicable times specified in paragraphs
(l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for
damaged, cracked, broken, or missing aft engine mount retainers, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015; or Goodrich
Service Bulletin RA32071-160, dated September 18, 2014. Repeat the
inspection of the aft engine mount retainers thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 12 months.
    (1) Within 12 months since the date of issuance of the original
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness.
    (2) Within 12 months after installation of new retainers.
    (3) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD.

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement of Retainers With Findings

    If, during any detailed inspection specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD, any installed aft engine mount retainer is found damaged,
cracked, broken, or missing: Before further flight, replace all
affected aft engine mount retainers with new retainers, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated April 7, 2015.

(n) New Requirement of This AD: No Terminating Action

    Replacement of retainers on an airplane, as required by
paragraph (m) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for
the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (l) of this AD for
that airplane.

(o) New Requirement of This AD: Required Reporting

    Submit a report of positive findings of any inspection required
by paragraph (l) of this AD to Airbus at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (o)(1) or (o)(2) of this AD. The report must
include the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies
found, the airplane serial number, and the number of landings and
flight hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(p) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (l) of
AD 2014-14-06, with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for
actions required by paragraphs (g), (i), and (j) of this AD, if
those actions were performed before August 27, 2014 (the effective
date of AD 2014-14-06) using Airbus AOT A71N001-12, Rev. 1, dated
August 9, 2012. This service information is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-
1060, dated October 9, 2014. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060,
dated October 9, 2014, is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (m) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-
1060, dated October 9, 2014, provided that it can be conclusively
determined that the torque value units applicable to nut item (14)
that are specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision
01, dated April 7, 2015, have been used. Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-71-1060, dated October 9, 2014, is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.

(q) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-14-06, are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (i),
(j), and (k) of this AD.
     (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
     (3) Reporting Requirements: 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 current 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 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.
    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): If any Airbus service
information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC,
those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(r) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), are not allowed.

(s) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0021, dated February 13,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3632.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (t)(5), (t)(6), and (t)(7) of this AD.

(t) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 16, 2016.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-71-1060, Revision 01, dated
April 7, 2015.
    (ii) Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-160, dated September 18,
2014.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 27, 2014 (79 FR 42655, July 23, 2014).
    (i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A71N001-12, Rev. 2,
dated February 27, 2013. The first page of this document contains
the document number, revision, and date; no other page of this
document contains this information.
    (ii) Goodrich Service Bulletin RA32071-146, Rev. 2, dated July
26, 2012.
    (5) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) For Goodrich Aerostructures service information identified
in this AD, contact Goodrich Aerostructures, 850 Lagoon Drive, Chula
Vista, CA 91910-2098; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    (7) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 1, 2016.
Phillip Forde,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-16212 Filed 7-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA
Office of Air and RadiationOffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Policy Division
Geographic Strategies Group
Draft April 19, 2012

August, 2003

                        INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
                           SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR
                            EPA ICR NUMBER 1813.08,
             RENEWAL OF THE ICR FOR THE REGIONAL HAZE REGULATIONS

EPA # 1813.08
EPA # 1230.16

Executive Summary
Draft 05/01/06
This ICR, EPA Form 1813.08, is an update of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2060-0421; EPA Form 1813.07 which expires on October 31, 2012. The current approved collection is for 859 respondents, 31,841 hours per year, and $2,563,000 per year. This renewal requests approval for 35 respondents (34 state agencies, and 1 group of Federal Land Managers (FLMs)), 4,080 hours per year, and $198,084 per year. Table E.1 summarizes the total annual respondent burden for this renewal. No tribes submitted regional haze plans, so there are no burden estimates for them.Draft 04/17/12
The change in burden is a program adjustment, reflecting changes in labor rates, changes in the activities conducted due to the normal progression of the program, and the fact that the aggregate initial regional haze state implementation plans (SIPs) and best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations will have been acted upon by the EPA by November 2012 and the states will be shifting their focus to development of interim progress reports required by the regional haze rule.

Table E-1 Estimated State, Source, and FLM Respondent Burden to Implement Requirements
Task Element
                                    States
                                    Source
                                     FLMs

Average Annual Hours
Average Annual Cost ($)
Average Annual Hours
Average Annual Cost ($)
Average Annual  Hours
Average Annual Cost ($)
Total Burden by Respondent
3,173
154,049
0
0
907
44,035
Total for Respondent Universe
4,080 hours; $198,084

                         EPA TRACKING NUMBER: 1813.08

                              E-TRACKING NUMBER:
                                 OMB-2060-0421
1	Identification of the Information Collection
1.1	Title
This document fulfills the Agency's requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) with regards to determining the regulatory burden associated with the implementation of the regional haze program (40 CFR 51.308) and requirements related to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (40 CFR 51.309). It has been assigned EPA tracking number 1813.08. The title of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is "Information Collection Request Supporting Statement for EPA ICR Number 1813.08, Renewal of The ICR for the Regional Haze Regulations."1.2	Description
OMD1.2	Description
Subpart P of 40 CFR 51, Protection of Visibility, also known as the regional haze rule, is the subject of this clearance request. In the next 3 years, activities conducted by the states, Federal Land Managers (FLMs), and the EPA will focus on  reporting requirements in the rule to address the progress of regional haze implementation plans. 40 CFR 51.308 (g) requires states to develop periodic reports evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in  Class I areas inside the state and in neighboring states. There are similar reporting requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, a section of the regional haze rule in which 3 states (Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico) elected to submit their SIPs. Under section 309, these states adopted regional haze strategies for the period from 2003 to 2018 for sulfur dioxide emissions. These strategies are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau area.

On June 15, 2005, the EPA finalized amendments to the July 1999 regional haze rule. These amendments apply to the provisions of the regional haze rule that require emission controls known as best available retrofit technology, or BART, for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility by causing or contributing to regional haze. The pollutants that reduce visibility include fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and compounds which contribute to PM2.5 formation, such as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxides (SO2), and under certain conditions volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia.

The BART requirements of the regional haze rule apply to facilities built between 1962 and 1977 that have the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of visibility-impairing pollution. Those facilities fall into 26 categories, including utility and industrial boilers, and large industrial plants such as pulp mills, refineries and smelters.  Many of these facilities have not been previously subject to federal pollution control requirements for these pollutants.

Under the 1999 regional haze regulations, states are required to set periodic goals for improving visibility in the 156 Federal Class I areas. As states work to reach these goals, they must develop regional haze implementation plans that contain enforceable measures and strategies for reducing visibility-impairing pollution. The 2005 amendments include guidelines, known as BART guidelines, for states to use in determining which facilities must install controls and the type of controls the facilities must use. States had to develop their implementation plans by December, 2007. As part of those plans, states were required identify the facilities that will have to reduce emissions under BART and then set BART emissions limits for those facilities.

The majority of the states did not submit their SIPs on time, and the EPA is currently subject to several consent decrees establishing schedules for final actions on the SIPs, or promulgation of FIPs, that in the aggregate require the agency to complete all remaining unfinished actions on the initial regional haze implementation plans by November 2012. Since that date aligns closely with the expiration of the currently approved ICR (October 31, 2012) and the majority of the effort required to complete the actions on the initial SIPs will have occurred, the primary focus for estimating burden for this 3 year renewal period (October 31, 2012  -  October 30, 2015) will apply to the next program milestone which is the 5 year periodic progress report (see 40 CFR 51.308(g)). The due date for states to submit the progress reports is 5 years from their initial regional haze SIP submittals, and for an estimated 34 states, that due date falls within the date range of this ICR renewal. In the 5 year progress reports, states are required to describe the status of the implementation of measures needed to achieve reasonable progress goals, report on the emissions reductions achieved, assess visibility changes, and evaluate whether the current implementation plan is sufficient to meet all established reasonable progress goals.
Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth a national goal for visibility. The goal is the "prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment in visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution." This section of the CAA also calls for EPA regulations to assure that states provide for reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. The original regulations on protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas, developed in 1980, addressed visibility that is "reasonably attributable" to a single source or small group of sources. The regional haze rule, promulgated in 1999, added new sections to the code of federal environmental regulations. These included sections 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309. This ICR renewal request provides for continued implementation of the regional raze rule. During this clearance period, we anticipate that the reporting requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g) will be the major program focus and the similar reporting requirements (see 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10)) for 3 states that submitted regional haze SIPs under 40 CFR 51.309
2	Need and Use of the Collection
2.1	Need / Authority for the Collection
  2.2	Practical Utility / Users of the Data
The data collected from respondents include revised state implementation plans. These data confirm progress in assessing visibility impairment and source contribution, and provide the foundation for the establishment of the reasonable progress goals, control strategies, and BART requirements.
2.3	Caveats and Considerations
The information in this ICR is based upon the best data available to the Agency at this time. However, incomplete data and sampling limitations imposed necessitated a certain amount of extrapolation and "best-guess" estimations. Consequently, the reader should not consider the conclusions to be an exact representation of the level of burden or cost that will occur. Instead, this ICR should be considered a directionally correct assessment of the impact the programmatic changes included in this rulemaking may have over the next 3 years.
Throughout this ICR, the reader will observe estimated values that show accuracy to the single hour or dollar. However, reporting values at the single unit level can be misleading. In most situations, the proper way to present estimated data would be to determine an appropriate level of precision and truncate values accordingly, usually in terms of thousands or millions of units. For instance, a spreadsheet generated estimation of $5,456,295 could be presented in the text as $5.5 (millions) or $5,456 (thousands). One problem with such an approach is the loss of data richness when the report contains a mixture of very large and very small numbers. Consequently, to avoid the loss of information through rounding, this ICR reports all values at the single unit level and reminds the reader that there is no implied precision inherent in this style of reporting.
This information collection renewal request is related to provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) which require periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals. Each state must submit an implementation plan revision evaluating whether improvement in visibility is made towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class 1 Federal area located within the state and in each mandatory Class 1 Federal area located outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. These implementation plans are due 5 years from the submittal of the initial regional haze plan. The reasonable progress implementation plans required by the regional haze rule are unique and do not duplicate other implementation plan requirements.
3.1	Non-Duplication
3	Non-Duplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria
3.2	Public Notice Requirements
In compliance with the PRA, this draft ICR must solicit public comments for a 60-day period prior to submission to OMB.

For any existing rule, § 3507(g) of the PRA limits how long a Director may take to approve a collection of information to 3 years. The ICR for the regional haze rule was revised last in August 2009. We solicited public comments on this ICR prior to submitting it to OMB. We issued a Federal Register notice requesting comments on the ICR renewal on August 26, 2009 (74 FR 43118). No significant comments were received.

3.3	Consultations
The EPA consulted with the EPA Region 5 Office for comment, review, and suggestions on this ICR renewal. The point of contact for the regional office is John Summerhays, regional haze coordinator for EPA Region 5,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Summerhays had no comments.

We also contacted the state of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), explained the requirements of the ICR renewal, and solicited comment. The point of contact is Mr. Michael Kiss, Director, Office of Air Quality Assessments, Richmond, VA,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Kiss had no comments.

3.4	Less Frequent
	Collection
The information collection requested under this ICR is necessary to ensure implementation of the 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309 requirements.  3.5	General
	Guidelines
OMB's general guidelines for information collections must be adhered to by all federal agencies for approval of any rulemaking's collection methodology. In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.5, the Agency believes:

   1. The regional haze regulations do not require periodic reporting more frequently than every 5 years.
   2. The regional haze regulations do not require respondents to participate in any statistical survey.
   3. Written responses to Agency inquiries are not required to be submitted in less than 30 days.
   4. Respondents do not receive remuneration for the preparation of reports required by the Act or part 51.
   5. To the greatest extent possible, the Agency has taken advantage of automated methods of reporting.

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the current regional haze program and the changes proposed in this rulemaking do not exceed any of the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5, except for the guideline which limits retention of records by respondents to 3 years. The Act requires both respondents and state or local agencies to retain records for a period of 5 years. The justification for this exception is found in 28 U.S.C. 2462, which specifies 5 years as the general statute of limitations for federal claims in response to violations by regulated entities. The decision in U.S. v. Conoco, Inc., No. 83-1916-E (W.D. Okla., January 23, 1984) found that the 5-year general statute of limitations applied to the CAA.
3.6	Confidentiality
Confidentiality is not an issue for this rulemaking. In accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, any monitoring information to be submitted by sources is a matter of public record. To the extent that the information required is proprietary, confidential, or of a nature that could impair the ability of the source to maintain its market position, that information is collected and handled subject to the requirements of §503(e) and §114(c) of the Act. Information received and identified by owners or operators as confidential business information (CBI) and approved as CBI by EPA, in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B, shall be maintained appropriately (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3.7	Sensitive
	Questions
The consideration of sensitive questions, (i.e., sexual, religious, personal or other private matters), is not applicable to this rulemaking. The information gathered to develop an implementation plan does not include personal data on any owner or operator.
3.8	Environmental Justice Considerations
Because the regional haze program operates nation-wide and across numerous industry classifications, the Agency does not believe there is a disproportionate EJ effect in the regional haze program.  4	The Respondents and the Information Requested
4.1	Respondents/
The major categories of respondents directly affected during this ICR period of October 31, 2012 through October 15, 2015 include the states and FLMs. The states are developing implementation plans under 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10) evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state.
The FLMs will evaluate the SIP revisions and provide comments to the states. The states are required to consult with the FLMs and explain how they address the FLMs comments in their final SIPs.

4.2	Information
	Requested
The information required under this ICR renewal provides for a continuation of the process initiated with previous ICRs for the regional haze rule. In this stage of the process, the states are revising their SIPs to report on progress made towards reaching their long term visibility goals. For 34 states, the progress reports will be due during the October 31, 2012 to October 30, 2015 ICR period.
The information that is requested under this renewal period under the regional haze rule requirements includes:

Submittal of Requirements for Periodic Reports Describing Progress Towards the Reasonable Progress Goals

   * Description of status of control measures
   * Summary of emission reductions
   * Calculation of visibility conditions and changes
   * Calculation of 5 year progress
   * Assessment of contributing emissions
   * Assessment of reasonable progress goals
   * Review monitoring strategy and note changes
   * Submit 5 year progress report
   * Determine degree of visibility improvement
   * Consult with FLMs

The first progress reports must be in the form of implementation plan revisions that comply with procedural requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 and 40 CFR 51.103. The reports are due 5 years after the initial regional haze plan submission.

5	The Information Collected - Agency Activities, Collection Methodologies, and Information Management
5.1	Agency Activities
EPA. Each EPA regional office is responsible for reviewing and approving the SIPs and promulgating FIPs when necessary. For this ICR renewal period, the EPA will primarily be reviewing the SIP revisions required under 308(g) and 309(d)(10), which are the periodic progress reports. The 10 EPA regional offices as well as the EPA headquarters offices will provide direction and facilitate resolution of major issues, and deliver data, tools, and training to the states as needed. Each regional office must address public comments before approving the SIPs or promulgating FIPs.

FLMs. The FLMs will be reviewing the SIP revisions and offering comments as part of the public comment process.

5.2	Collection
	Methodology
	and
	Management
This section discusses the development of burden estimates and their conversion into costs, which are separated into burden costs and capital and O&M costs. According to the latest guidance for ICRs (EPA 11/05), capital and O&M costs display the cost of any new capital equipment the respondent may have to purchase solely for information collection, assimilation, and storage purposes. For example, if a source had to purchase a new mini-computer to store and manipulate data, that computer would be a cost of administration subject to reporting in the ICR. In addition, the latest guidance instructs the Agency to differentiate the burden associated with a source's labor and that which it hires through outside contractors. To the extent a source contracts out for administrative purposes (e.g., employing consultants to perform visibility modeling), the burden associated with those contracted tasks are not a burden to the source - but they still remain a cost. The reader should read this section with the following considerations in mind:
   * The Agency believes the time necessary to perform a task is independent of the origins of its labor. For example, if a source would employ 20 hours of burden to fully perform a function, then a contractor hired by the source would also take 20 hours to perform that same task. Furthermore, the Agency assumes no economies or diseconomies of scale. The linear combination of any amount of contractor and source effort will also sum to 20 hours. Therefore, the burden estimates in this ICR act as an accurate assessment of the total burden to respondents.
   * For some burden categories, the Agency believes the hours assigned to them will be divided between the source and outside contractors.  For these categories, the Agency established a composite cost per hour by developing a weighted average of the source and contractor wages, with the weight defined by the percentage of total effort each burden source applied. Consequently, the cost developed in this ICR should be interpreted as an upper bound on the actual cost of administration by the source. The methodology for determining cost per hour can be found in greater detail in section 6.2, below.
   * While this ICR renewal estimates burden to federal and state agencies, it does not include costs estimates to the industrial sources. This is because the effort for this ICR renewal period, October 31, 2012 through October 31, 2015 mainly involves preparation and review of the progress reports required under 308(g) and 309(d)(10) of the regional haze rule. Sources, for the most part, will not be involved in preparation of these reports.

The implementation plans prepared by the states are periodic progress reports which are due five years after the state submits its comprehensive regional haze SIP. The plans must at a minimum include the following elements:

   * A description of the status of all measures included in the regional haze implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress.
   * A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the state through implementation of the measures.
   * An assessment of the following visibility conditions and changes for each mandatory Class 1 Federal area within the state with values for most impaired and least impaired days expressed in terms of 5-year averages of the annual values: current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days; the difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions; and the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years.
   * An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the state.
   * An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.
   * An assessment of whether the current regional haze implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the state, or other states with mandatory Class 1 Federal areas affected by emissions from the state, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.
   * A review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
   * Other elements, including reporting, record keeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility.

5.3	Small Entity
	Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires regulatory agencies, upon regulatory action, to assess that action's potential impact on small entities (businesses, governments, and small non-governmental organizations) and report the results of the assessments in (1) an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), (2) a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), and (3) a Certification. For ICR approval, the Agency must demonstrate that it "has taken all practicable steps to develop separate and simplified requirements for small businesses and other small entities" (5 CFR 1320.6(h)). In addition, the agencies must assure through various mechanisms that small entities are given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.

The EPA determined that it was not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the regional haze rule (July 6, 2005, 70 FR 39104) because the rule did not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Similarly, this ICR renewal will not impose any direct requirements on small entities and will apply primarily to states which are developing the SIP revisions.

5.4	Collection
	Schedule
States are required to submit their periodic progress reports, in the form of a SIP revision, 5 years after the initial regional haze plan submission. Table 5.1 shows when these reports are due for each of the states. Note that some states have reports which are due outside of this renewal period, beyond October 31, 2012. Accordingly, we have estimated burden only for the 34 states with due dates that fall in 2015 or earlier.
Table 5.1	Due Dates for the 5 Year Progress Reports
Initial Regional Haze Submittal Year
5 Year Progress Report Due Date
State
2007
2012
NC, SC
2008
2013
AL, AR, DE, KY, LA, MS, MO, TN, UT, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County NM
2009
2014
CA, CT, KS, MN, NV, NJ, RI, TX, VT
2010
2015
District of Columbia, FL, GA, ID, ME, MI, NH, NY, ND, OK, OR, PA, VA
2011
2016
AK, AZ, CO, IN, NE, NM, OH, SD, WA, WY
2012
2017
MA, MD

6	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The burden estimate should be composed of (1) the total capital and start-up cost component annualized over its useful life; (2) the total operation, maintenance and purchases of services component. Each component should be divided into burden borne directly by the respondent and any services that are contracted out.

This ICR renewal will apply primarily to 34 states which are developing 5-year progress reports in the form of SIP revisions6.1	Estimating Respondent Burden
 to satisfy the requirements of the regional haze rule. 5.4	Collection
	Schedule
Table 5.1 above shows when these reports are due for each of the states and the estimated due date for the SIPs. The FLMs will review and comment on those plans. For this renewal period, the burden for industrial sources will be negligible as the reports are required from the states.

For three states (Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico) which submitted their regional haze SIPs under section 309 of the regional haze rule, there are also 5-year periodic reporting requirements that are essentially the same as the requirements under section 308(g). Table 6.1 summarizes the results for each of the major categories of respondents with details discussed in the narrative below.

Develop and Submit 5-Year Progress Reports as required under the Regional Haze Rule.  Based on the elements that are required for the report, which are described in section 5.2 above, we believe that an estimate of 280 hours per state to complete the report is reasonable.  Much of the analysis for the report will entail the states assessing changes in their emission inventories for the reporting period and reporting on changes in visibility based on available monitoring data. This burden estimate does not include any hours for preparation and finalization of the emission inventories because it is assumed that the EPA will provide an approved inventory, with appropriate forward projections of future visibility conditions, which the states may use for their analyses. For each individual state, we believe that approximately 160 hours on average is needed to analyze, evaluate, and summarize changes in the inventory and monitoring data over the reporting period, and another 80 hours is sufficient to prepare the report in the form of a SIP revision. These estimates are based on informal conversations with state and the EPA's technical staff. Finally, we assumed that states would need approximately 40 additional hours to address and respond to any public comments received on its SIP revision.

We assumed the FLMs would spend 80 hours, on average, reviewing and formally commenting on each of the SIP revisions.

Table 6.1. Estimated Respondent Burden to Implement Requirements
Task Element
Hours/State
Hours/Source
FLM  -  hours/state SIP
Year Incurred
Develop and submit §308(g) or 309(d)(10) Implementation Plan  -  5-year periodic reports
240
0
80
2012 - 2015

6.2	Estimating Respondent Costs
This ICR uses the most recently available wage values with the wage rate methods established in the New Source Review (NSR) ICRs. For this renewal period, the burden for industrial sources will be negligible as the reports are required from the states with review being done by the EPA and the FLMs.
Consistent with methodologies for previous NSR ICRs, the labor rate used to calculate federal, state, and local respondents' labor costs is approximated from the 2012 federal government pay schedule. Managerial rates are accounted for by multiplying the hourly rate by 9%; the clerical support rates are multiplied by 13%. The hourly rate is $48.55, and the calculation is shown in Table 6.3

Table 6.3 Determination of Federal, State, and Local Wage Rates
Annual Salary of Technical Staff, GS 11 Step 3 (FY 12 Schedule)*

                                                                     $53,639.00
Annual Cost of Supervisory Staff, GS 13 Step 3 (FY 12 Schedule)*
                                                                     $76,452.00

   Factor (1/11)
                                                                           0.09

                                                                      $6,880.68
Annual Cost of Support Staff, GS 6 Step 6 (FY 12 Schedule)*
   Factor (1/8)
                                                                     $35,672.00

                                                                           0.13

                                                                      $4,637.36
Annual Applicable Salary of Technical Staff

                                                                     $65,157.04
Benefits (at 16%)

                                                                     $10,425.13
Sick Leave / Vacation (at 10%)

                                                                      $6,515.70
General Overhead (at 29%)

                                                                     $18,895.54
Total Cost Per FTE

                                                                    $100,993.41
Total Hourly Cost (Total Per FTE divided by 2,080 hours per year)

                                                                         $48.55
* http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/html/gs.asp  February 2012

Since the purchase of capital equipment is believed to be an insignificant factor in meeting the requirements associated with this ICR renewal, the EPA assumes the operation, maintenance, or services are negligible Most of the data and other guidance for estimating emissions and visibility impacts are available in electronic form and any equipment needed to respond to requests will be part of the respondent's operating inventory.

6.2.3	Annualized Capital Costs
Typically annualized capital cost would be derived from a discounted net present value of the stream of costs that would occur over the life of the activity, or the ICR, whichever is shorter. However we do not anticipate these types of expenses will be incurred during this clearance period.
6.3	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
For this ICR, we have assumed the following number of offices will be involved in implementing the Regional Haze requirements.
EPA Regional Offices.  We assume that all 10 EPA Regional Offices will be responsible for reviewing implementation plans from the states in their jurisdiction, responding to public comments, and preparing federal register notices in taking final action on the SIPs.

EPA Headquarters.  The EPA Headquarters staff will provide oversight and review of the submittals.

Table 6.4 presents our estimate of the Agency burden in the ICR clearance period which is the average to review one state plan. In developing these estimates, we considered previous estimates for similar activities, particularly related to the time necessary to review SIPs and prepare federal register notices and respond to public comments. The SIP revisions for this renewal period are anticipated to be much abbreviated compared to the comprehensive regional haze SIP submittals which are required to be submitted every 10 years. This results in a reduced burden relative to the previous ICR renewals as there are no modeling, emission inventory, or control strategy analyses due during the 2012  -  2015 collection period.

Summing the total hours from Table 6.4 (400 hours) and multiplying by 34 total plans yields a total estimate of 13,600 hours. Using the calculated labor rate of $48.55/hr, from Table 6.3, multiplied by the 13,600 hours gives an estimated cost of $660,280, which when averaged over the 3 year collection period is $220,093 per year as the Agency's burden estimate.

Table 6.4.  Estimated Agency Burden to Implement Requirements
Task Element
Hours/EPA Regional Office
Hours/EPA Headquarters
Year Incurred
Review Periodic Progress Reports from States
160
80
2012 - 2015
Respond to Public Comments and Prepare Federal Register Notices
120
40
2012  -  2015
TOTAL
280
120

6.4	Estimating the Respondent Universe
For the purpose of estimating burden in this ICR, the respondent universe is determined as follows.
States. We assume that 34 states, including Bernalillo County in New Mexico, will be affected by the regional haze rule reporting requirements.

Tribes. No tribes have elected to develop and implement the regional haze plan.

Industry. The sole regional haze requirement for this reporting period is for the states to submit periodic progress reports, and thus there is no anticipated burden for industrial sources.

FLMs. The burden hours for FLMs are estimated for the group as a whole, and are estimated to be 80 hours for each SIP revision. For 34 total SIPs, the total hours would be 2,720. Multiplying by the labor rate of $48.55/hr equates to a cost of $132,056, or $44,019 per year for each of the 3 years.

6.5	Bottom Line Burden and Cost
Tables 6.6 summarizes the total annual respondent burden which is 4,080 hours per year and $198,000 per year. As described in section 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, there are no operation and maintenance costs or capital costs associated with activities to be conducted during this 3-year clearance period. The total number of respondents is 35 (34 state agencies and 1 group of FLMs.)

Table 6.6  Estimated Annual Respondent Burden to Implement Requirements
Task Element
                                    States
                                     FLMs

Average Annual Hours
Average Annual Cost ($)
Average Annual  Hours
Average Annual Cost ($)
Develop and submit §308(g) or 309(d)(10) Implementation Plan  -  5-year periodic reports
3,173

Calculation:
(280 hours per plan x 34 plans)/3 years=
3,173 hr/yr
154,049

Calculation:
(3,173 hrs per yr x labor rate of $48.55)
0
0
Review and Comment on Reports
0
0
907

Calculation:
(80 hours per plan x 34 plans)/3 years=
907 hr/yr
44,035

Calculation:
(907 hrs per yr x labor rate of $48.55)
Total Burden by Respondent
3,173
154,049
907
44,035
Total for Respondent Universe
4,080 hours; $198,084

6.6	Reasons for Change in Burden
The burden estimates for this ICR renewal period cover different task elements than those for the previous renewal (1813.07). These differences reflect the requirements of the final regional haze rule with respect to the scheduled events and activities in the implementation process.
6.7	Burden Statement
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; searching data sources; completing and reviewing the collection of information; and transmitting or otherwise disclosing the information. The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, the EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0162, that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select "search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. (OAR-2003-0162) in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37153]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 14

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Advisory Committee; Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
Advisory Committee; Termination

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
termination of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory
Committee. This document removes the Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies Advisory Committee from the Agency's list of standing
advisory committees.

DATES: This rule is effective June 9, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Emery, Division of Scientific
Advisors and Consultants, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-8054, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathies Advisory Committee (the Committee) was established on
June 9, 1995 (60 FR 31311, June 14, 1995; 21 CFR 14.100 erroneously
lists the date of establishment as June 21, 1995). The Committee
reviews and evaluates available scientific data concerning the safety
of products that may be a risk for transmission of spongiform
encephalopathies having an impact on the public health as determined by
the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. The Committee makes recommendations
to the Commissioner regarding the regulation of such products. In
recent years, the number of issues requiring Committee advice has
declined, and the Committee has met very infrequently. Therefore, the
effort and expense of maintaining this advisory committee is no longer
justified. Any relevant Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy issues
in the future could be addressed by the Agency's other advisory
committees, such as the Agency's Blood Products Advisory Committee,
with additional augmentation of expertise by appropriate subject matter
experts serving as temporary members on the committee.
    The Committee is no longer needed and will be terminated on June 9,
2016.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d) and 21 CFR 10.40 (d) and (e),
the Agency finds good cause to dispense with notice and public comment
procedures and to proceed to an immediate effective date on this rule.
Notice and public comment and a delayed effective date are unnecessary
and are not in the public interest as this final rule merely removes
the name of the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory
Committee from the list of standing advisory committees in 21 CFR
14.100.
    Therefore, the Agency is amending 21 CFR 14.100(b) as set forth in
the regulatory text of this document.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 14

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Color
additives, Drugs, Radiation protection.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
14 is amended as follows:

PART 14--PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

0
1. The authority citation for part 14 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. App. 2; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461, 21 U.S.C. 41-
50, 141-149, 321-394, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; 42
U.S.C. 201, 262, 263b, 264; Pub. L. 107-109; Pub. L. 108-155.

Sec.  14.100  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  14.100, redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(4) and remove
paragraph (b)(6).

    Dated: June 6, 2016.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-13705 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 60927-60928]
[DOCID:fr26oc07-126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2007-38]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking
relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this
notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in,
this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
29267 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in

Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Docket: To read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket

Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will post all comments we receive,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information you provide. Using the search function of our docket web
site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Frances Shaver<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2007.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2007-29267.
    Petitioner: AirNow.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.45(a)(1)(i).
    Description of Relief Sought: To allow AirNow to conduct type
rating flight checks in either of two versions of the EMB-110 aircraft
to satisfy the requirements under Sec.  61.45.

[FR Doc. E7-21108 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 8779]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04300]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0103]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Airport
Grants Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves data from airport sponsors and
planning agencies to determine eligibility, and to ensure proper use of
Federal funds and project accomplishments for the Airport Improvement
Program.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Robin Hunt, Acting Director, Office of Airport Planning
and Programming, APP-1 Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave. SW, Suite 620, Washington, DC 20591.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Dickerson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0569.
    Title: Airport Grants Program.
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 5100-100, 5100-101, 5100-108, 5100-110,
5100-126, 5100-127, 5100-128, 5100-129, 5100-130, 5100-131, 5100-132,
5100-133, 5100-134, 5100-135, 5100-136, 5100-137, 5100-138, 5100-139,
5100-140, 5100-141, 5100-142, 5370-1.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Codification of certain U.S. Transportation laws at 49
U.S.C., repealed the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as
amended, and the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, as
amended, and re-codified them without substantive change at Title 49
U.S.C., which is referred to as the ``Act.'' The Act provides funding
for airport planning and development projects at airports included in
the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. The Act also
authorizes funds for noise compatibility planning and to carry out
noise compatibility programs. The information required by this program
is necessary to protect the Federal interest in safety, efficiency, and
utility of the Airport. Data is collected to meet report requirements
of 2 CFR part 200 for certifications and representations, financial
management and performance measurement.
    Respondents: Approximately 13,000 applications.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 9 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Approximately 118,000 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 2019.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Acting Manager, Airports Financial Assistance Division, APP-500.
[FR Doc. 2019-04300 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 04/25/2008 07:40 AM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Responses to interagency questions on the Pb RIA

I'm sure there will be plenty of other items to discuss, I did not

organize in interagency group but rather am assembling comments -- I'm

working on assembling comments now and hopefully will have something to

you in advance of the mtg

At the very least I'll be somewhat organized.

Thanks again, Kathy --

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:07 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: Responses to interagency questions on the Pb RIA

Heidi -- should be coming in the a.m.  Am awaiting an o.k. from one key

office.

Tom Pace, who put together the information, is not available for our

meeting tomorrow, though.  He's out tomorrow.  I'm assuming there will

be plenty else to discuss?

Thanks.

- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

To      Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

      cc      Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal

Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia

Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

      bcc

      Subject       RE: Responses to interagency questions on

the Pb RIA

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 04/24/2008 04:27 PM AST

Hi Kathy,

Any word on the additional materials re: dust?

Commenters asking --

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:46 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Responses to interagency questions on the Pb RIA

Heidi, quick typo correction in the file I sent yesterday (see attached

email):

In the answer to the first question, "from leaded avgas" was left out of

the following sentence.  It should read:

"In addition, we do not have cost estimates regarding the control of

lead emissions from leaded avgasand we can't assume a priori that these

control measures would be either more, or less expensive than point

source controls."

Thanks.  Sorry about that.

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Kathy

Kaufman/RTP/USEP

A/US                                                    To

"King, Heidi R."

04/22/2008 03:02<EMAIL_ADDRESS> PM                                                      cc

Charlotte

Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia

Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia

Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal

Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Responses to interagency

questions on the Pb RIA(Document

link: Kathy Kaufman)

Heidi -- we drafted responses to the questions you had forwarded.

Please see the attached.

Thanks.

-- Kathy

(See attached file: Interagency responses 4-22-08.doc)

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60940-60942]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25843]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0057]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from eight individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0057 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0057), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0057, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0057, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds ``such exemption
would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.

    The eight individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications
of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will
achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advisory criteria states the following:
    If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic
seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require
anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to
control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical
Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-
year period or more.
    As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria
as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a
CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or
more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical
Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best
practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.'' Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has
published additional notices granting requests from individuals for
exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Kevin L. Addington

    Mr. Addington is a 45-year-old class C driver in Pennsylvania. He
has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1991. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2007. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Addington receiving an exemption.

Miodrag Djukanovic

    Mr. Djukanovic is a 59-year-old class C driver in Oregon. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2018. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since November 2016. His physician states that he is supportive of
Mr. Djukanovic receiving an exemption.

Daniel R. Gast

    Mr. Gast is a 49-year-old class CM CDL holder in Kansas. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since January
2008. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since September 2016. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Gast receiving an exemption.

David R. Johnston

    Mr. Johnston is a 49-year-old class B CDL holder in Minnesota. He
has a history of a single provoked seizure and has been seizure free
since 2017. He does not take anti-seizure medication. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Johnston receiving an exemption.

Sheldon R. Martin

    Mr. Martin is a 36-year-old class C driver in New York. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2007. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2013. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Martin receiving an exemption.

Brian L. McDaniel

    Mr. McDaniel is a 47-year-old class E driver in Missouri. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1992. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 1992. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Mc Daniel receiving an exemption.

Kevin D. Wiggins

    Mr. Wiggins is a 51-year-old class B CDL holder in Kentucky. He has
a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1983.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 1983. His physician states that she is
supportive of Mr. Wiggins receiving an exemption.

Robert R. Woods, Jr.

    Mr. Woods is a 60-year-old class A CDL holder in Connecticut. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since
2007. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 1975. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Woods receiving an exemption.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public

comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates
section of the notice.

    Issued on: November 20, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-25843 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P