[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81879-81883]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33376]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0794; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-035-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The original NPRM proposed a general
visual inspection to identify any existing structural repair manual
repairs of the upper main sill outer chord of the left and right side
main entry door number 1, as applicable; repetitive detailed
inspections for cracks in the upper main sill of the door(s); and
related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. The
original NPRM also proposed repetitive inspections for airplanes on
which a certain repair is done, and corrective actions if necessary.
The original NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks in the main entry
door number 1 upper main sill outer chord, along the bend radius of the
chord on several airplanes. This action revises the original NPRM by
reducing certain compliance times. We are proposing this supplemental
NPRM to detect and correct cracks in the main entry door number 1 upper
main sill outer chord, along the bend radius of the chord, which could
result in loss of structural integrity of the airplane. Since these
actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the original
NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the
chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by February
13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(425) 917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0794;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-035-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. That original
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2009 (74 FR
49351). That original NPRM proposed to require a general visual
inspection to identify any existing structural repair manual (SRM)
repairs of the upper main sill outer chord of the left and right side
main entry door number 1, as applicable; repetitive detailed
inspections for cracks in the upper main sill of the door(s); and
related investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. The
original NPRM also proposed to require repetitive inspections for
airplanes on which a certain repair is done, and corrective actions if
necessary.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM (74 FR 49351, September 28,
2009), Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785,
Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010. Among other things, Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, makes
certain grouping changes for the affected airplanes, and also describes
procedures for reducing the compliance threshold and repetitive
interval for inspections of Model 747-400 series airplanes modified to
the large cargo freighter (LCF) configuration.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the commenters.

Request To Change Compliance Times for Certain Airplanes

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (g), (h)(1), and (i) of
the original NPRM (74 FR 49351, September 28, 2009) to reduce the
compliance times and repetitive inspection interval for certain Model
747-400 series airplanes modified to the LCF configuration. Boeing
explained that those airplanes operate at higher stress levels, and
that cracks may initiate sooner and grow faster. Boeing suggested using
the compliance times in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, instead
of the compliance times listed in paragraph 1.E. ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, dated February 12, 2009,
which was referred to in the original NPRM.
    We agree to revise this supplemental NPRM as requested by the
commenter. The original NPRM (74 FR 49351, September 28, 2009) referred
to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, dated February 12, 2009,
as the appropriate source of service information. We have reviewed
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15,
2010. Among other things, this service information makes certain
grouping changes for the affected airplanes. This service information
also describes procedures for reducing the compliance threshold and
repetitive interval for inspections of Model 747-400 series airplanes
modified to the LCF configuration. This service information specifies
that the reduced compliance threshold for those airplanes is 10,000
total flight cycles or within 1,500 flight cycles after the date of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15,
2010 (whichever occurs later). The revised repetitive interval for
those airplanes is 3,000 flight cycles.
    In addition, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1,
dated July 15, 2010, specifies a compliance threshold for certain Model
747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes (i.e., Groups 6 and 7
airplanes) of 12,000 total flight cycles or within 1,500 flight cycles
after the date of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, dated
February 12, 2009, (whichever occurs later). The repetitive interval
for those airplanes is 6,000 flight cycles.
    In light of this revised service information, we have revised this
supplemental NPRM to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010. In addition, we have
reformatted this supplemental NPRM to specify certain required actions
by airplane group.
    We have also added paragraph (r) to this supplemental NPRM to give
credit for accomplishing the inspections and repairs before the
effective date of this AD, as specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2785, dated February 12, 2009.

Request To Refer to Service Information Instead of the Drawing

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the original NPRM
(September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49351)) to refer to ``the service bulletin
repair drawing reference'' instead of ``drawing 691U0145.'' Boeing
explained that they were in the process of revising Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785 to change Drawing 691U0145 into an
orderable kit, which means that the repair drawing number will change.
    We agree with the commenter's request to remove references to a
particular drawing since the number will change. Based on Boeing's
comment, we have revised this supplemental NPRM to refer to Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010,
for the outer chord repair.

Requests To Add Acceptable Method of Compliance Information

    Boeing requested that paragraph (j) of the original NPRM (September
28, 2009 (74 FR 49351)) (i.e., paragraph (o) of this supplemental NPRM)
be revised to add that accomplishment of the inspections required by AD
2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629, August 27, 2009); or AD
2006-05-02, Amendment 39-14499 (71 FR 10605, March 2, 2006) (as
superseded by AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-16157 (75 FR 1533, January
12, 2010)); as applicable; is acceptable for compliance with the
inspection requirements of paragraphs (h) and (i) of the original NPRM.
    Boeing explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785,
dated February 12, 2009, states that when the inspections ``per the
fatigue test ADs 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629, August
27, 2009) or 2006-05-02, Amendment 39-14499 (71 FR 10605, March 2,
2006)'' are accomplished, the inspections per the original NPRM
(September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49351)) and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2785, dated February 12, 2009, are satisfied. Therefore,
accomplishment of the inspections required by AD 2009-18-07 or 2006-05-
02 (as superseded by AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-16157 (75 FR 1533,
January 12, 2010)) is acceptable for compliance with the inspection
requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of the original NPRM.
Boeing reasoned that the information should be included in paragraph
(j) of the original NPRM.
    Boeing also requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the original
NPRM (September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49351)) to replace the reference to AD
2005-20-30, Amendment 39-14327 (70 FR 59252, October 12, 2005), with a
reference to AD 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629, August 27,
2009). Boeing explained that AD 2005-20-30 has been superseded by AD
2009-18-07.
    All Nippon Airways (ANA) also requested that paragraph (j) of the
original NPRM (September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49351)) be revised to refer to
both paragraphs (g) and (h) of the original NPRM to clarify AMOC
requirements. ANA explained that paragraph (j) of the original NPRM
specifies that accomplishing the inspections required by AD 2005-20-30,
Amendment 39-14327 (70 FR 59252, October 12, 2005) (which was
superseded by AD 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629, August
27, 2009)); or AD 2006-05-02, Amendment 39-14499 (71 FR 10605, March 2,
2006) (which was superseded by AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-16157 (75 FR
1533, January 12, 2010)); is an acceptable method of compliance for the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of the original NPRM. ANA
reasoned further, that paragraph (g) of the original NPRM refers only
to the initial inspection, and paragraph (h) of the original NPRM
refers to the repetitive inspection.
    We agree that accomplishing the detailed inspections required by AD
2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74

FR 43629, August 27, 2009); or AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-16157 (75 FR
1533, January 12, 2010); as applicable; is acceptable for compliance
with the detailed inspection requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) of this supplemental NPRM. Therefore, in paragraph (o) of this
supplemental NPRM (which corresponds to paragraph (j) of the original
NPRM (74 FR 49351, September 28, 2009)), we have referred to paragraphs
(g), (h), (l), and (m), since the actions specified by paragraph (o) of
this supplemental NPRM are acceptable for compliance with those
paragraphs.
    We also agree to revise paragraph (o) of this supplemental NPRM to
reference to current AD 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629,
August 27, 2009); and AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-16157 (75 FR 1533,
January 12, 2010). In addition, we have referenced the current ADs in
paragraph (b) of this supplemental NPRM, since those ADs are affected
by this supplemental NPRM.

Request To Include Latest Revision of Service Information

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (j) of the original NPRM
(September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49351)) (i.e., paragraph (o) of this
supplemental NPRM), to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2, 2008, instead of Revision 2,
dated April 3, 2003, of that service bulletin.
    We agree that this supplemental NPRM should refer to the latest
service information. We have revised paragraph (o) of this supplemental
NPRM to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3,
dated October 2, 2008.

Request To Revise Boeing Delegated Option Authorization (DOA) to Boeing
Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)

    Boeing requested that we revise any occurrence of the phrase
``Boeing DOA'' in the original NPRM (September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49351))
to ``Boeing ODA'' in this supplemental NPRM. Boeing explained that
Boeing Commercial Airplanes has changed from ``DOA'' to ``ODA.''
    We agree to revise ``Boeing DOA'' to ``Boeing ODA'' in this
supplemental NPRM. Boeing Commercial Airplanes has received an ODA,
which replaces their previous designation as a DOA holder. We have
revised paragraph (s) of this supplemental NPRM to delegate the
authority to approve an AMOC for any repair required by this AD to the
Boeing Commercial ODA.

Clarification of ``PART 3--REPAIR''

    The installation of a new outer chord repair specified in Section
``PART 3--REPAIR'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785,
Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, includes replacing any existing SRM
outer chord repair with a new repair, repairing cracked outer chords,
replacing cracked frame attach angles or clips, and contacting Boeing
for repair instructions and doing the repair for main upper sill web
cracks.

Clarification of Service Bulletin

    The ``detailed inspection of the upper main sill web and frame
attachment angles (or clips) for crack(s)'' in the second column, sixth
row down, on page 26 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785,
Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, is not in the Accomplishment
Instructions of that document. PART 3--REPAIR of the Accomplishment
Instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1,
dated July 15, 2010, is correct; there is no detailed inspection
necessary as part of the repair. We note that a detailed inspection of
the upper main sill (including the sill web and frame attachment angles
(or clips) for cracks) is already required in PART 2--INSPECTION of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type
designs. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM (September 28, 2009 (74 FR 49351)). As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental
NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously, except as
discussed under ``Differences Between the Supplemental NPRM and the
Service Information.''

Differences Between the Supplemental NPRM and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July
15, 2010, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how
to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require
repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA whom we have authorized to make
those findings.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the original NPRM (September 28, 2009 (74 FR
49351)), we have increased the labor rate used in the Costs of
Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of
Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in the specified
labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 165 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
             Action                    Work hours        Parts cost      Cost per product     registered               Cost on U.S. operators
                                                                                airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (Groups 1, 3, 5-6)...  6 work-hours x $85               $0  $510 per inspection              86  $43,860 per inspection cycle.
                                   per hour = $510                      cycle.
Inspection (Groups 2, 4, 7).....  3 work-hours x $85               $0  $255 per inspection              79  $20,145 per inspection cycle.
                                   per hour = $255                      cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We have received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2009-0794; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-035-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 13, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    AD 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629, August 27,
2009); and AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-16157 (75 FR 1533, January
12, 2010); affect this AD.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in the main entry door
number 1 upper main sill outer chord, along the bend radius of the
chord on several airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct such cracks, which could result in loss of structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Inspection for Group 1 Through 4 Airplanes

    For Group 1 through 4 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010: At
the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July
15, 2010, except as provided by paragraphs (p) and (q) of this AD,
do a one-time general visual inspection to identify any existing
structural repair manual (SRM) repairs of the upper main sill outer
chord of the left and right main entry door 1, as applicable. Remove
any existing SRM outer chord repair that is found, before further
flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010.
In addition, after doing the one-time general visual inspection to
identify any existing SRM repairs of the upper main sill outer chord
of the left and right main entry door 1, before further flight, do a
detailed inspection for cracks of the main upper sill outer chord,
web, and frame attachment angles (or clips) of the left and right
main entry door 1, as applicable. Do all actions in accordance with
Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010. If no crack
and no existing SRM outer chord repair is found during any
inspection required by this paragraph, at the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, except as
provided by paragraphs (p) and (q) of this AD, repeat thereafter the
detailed inspection for cracks, at intervals specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785,
Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, until the outer chord repair
specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010,
is installed.

(h) Inspection for Group 5 Through 7 Airplanes

    For Group 5 through 7 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010: At
the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July
15, 2010, except as provided by paragraphs (p) and (q) of this AD,
do a detailed inspection for cracks of the main upper sill outer
chord, web, and frame attachment angles (or clips) of the left and
right main entry door 1, as applicable, in accordance with Part 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010. If no crack is found
during any inspection required by this paragraph, at the applicable
time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010,
except as provided by paragraph (p) and (q) of this AD, repeat
thereafter the detailed inspection for cracks, at intervals
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, until the
outer chord repair specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision
1, dated July 15, 2010, is installed.

(i) Repair for Group 1 Through 4 Airplanes

    For Group 1 through 4 airplanes as identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010: If an
existing SRM outer chord repair is found and removed during the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further
flight, install a new outer chord repair in accordance with Part 3
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010.

(j) Repair of Outer Chord Crack or Cracked Frame Attachment Angles (or
Clips)

    If any outer chord crack or cracked frame attachment angles (or
clips) is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or
(h) of this AD, before further flight, repair, in

accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010.

(k) Repair of Upper Main Sill Web Crack

    If any upper main sill web crack is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, before further flight,
repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.

(l) Inspection

    If any upper main sill web or frame attachment angles (or clips)
have been repaired as specified in PART 3--REPAIR of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, and the outer chord repair
specified in PART 3--REPAIR of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July
15, 2010, has not been installed, at the applicable time specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, except as provided by
paragraphs (p) and (q) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for
cracks as specified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as
applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July
15, 2010. Repeat the inspections in paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD,
as applicable, thereafter at intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785,
Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010.

(m) Post-Repair Inspection

    For airplanes having the outer chord repair installed as
specified in PART 3--REPAIR of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July
15, 2010: At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785,
Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, except as provided by paragraphs
(p) and (q) of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracks of the
left and right main entry door 1 upper sill, as applicable, with the
outer chord repair installed, in accordance with PART 5--AFTER-
REPAIR INSPECTION of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010.
Repeat the inspection for cracks thereafter at the applicable
intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010.

(n) Repair of Any Crack Found From Post-Repair Inspection

    Repair any crack found during any inspection required by
paragraph (m) of this AD, before further flight, using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(s) of this AD.

(o) Credit for Inspections Required by AD 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-
16003 (74 FR 43629, August 27, 2009), or AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-
16157 (75 FR 1533, January 12, 2010)

    Accomplishing the main entry door 1 cutout detailed inspection
required by AD 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629, August
27, 2009); or AD 2010-01-01, Amendment 39-16157 (75 FR 1533, January
12, 2010); as applicable; before the effective date of this AD is
acceptable for compliance with the detailed inspection requirements
of paragraphs (g), (h), (l), and (m) of this AD only. The one-time
general visual inspection of paragraph (g) of this AD is still
required.

    Note 1:  For all applicable airplanes that have accumulated
22,000 total flight cycles or more after October 1, 2009 (the
effective date of AD 2009-18-07, Amendment 39-16003 (74 FR 43629,
August 27, 2009)), AD 2009-18-07 requires accomplishing the main
entry door 1 cutout detailed inspection in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2349, Revision 3, dated October 2,
2008. For all applicable airplanes (except 747-400 series airplanes
modified to the 747-400 large cargo freighter (LCF) configuration)
that have accumulated 22,000 total flight cycles or more after
February 16, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-01-01, Amendment
39-16157 (75 FR 1533, January 12, 2010)), AD 2010-01-01 requires
accomplishing the main entry door 1 cutout detailed inspection in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2500, Revision
1, dated September 25, 2008. For Model 747-400 series airplanes
modified to the Model 747-400 LCF configuration and having
accumulated 15,000 total flight cycles or more as of February 16,
2010, AD 2010-01-01 requires accomplishing the inspections in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2500, Revision
1, dated September 25, 2008.

(p) Exception to the Service Information

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, specifies a
compliance time ``after the original issue date of this service
bulletin,'' or ``after the date on Revision 1 of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(q) Exception to Compliance Time

    Where 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2785, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010, specifies a compliance
time of ``within'' a specified ``total flight-cycles,'' this AD
requires compliance ``before the accumulation'' of the specified
total flight cycles.

(r) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    Doing the inspections and repairs, in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2785, dated February 12, 2009, before
the effective date of this AD, is acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding inspections and repairs required by paragraphs (g),
(h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of this AD.

(s) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD

(t) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Ivan Li,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
(206) 544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 22, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-33376 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


\s \* MERGEFORMAT\s \* MERGEFORMAT\s \* MERGEFORMATUnited States Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management
                            Water Permits Division
                                September 2010

           National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
                  Information Collection Rulemaking and CAFOs

Background  -  CAFOs and the NPDES Program

	In 2008, EPA revised the NPDES permit regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to address the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA.  Among other things, the 2008 final rule addressed the court's ruling by specifying that a CAFO that "discharges or proposes to discharge" must seek NPDES permit coverage.  The rulemaking also clarifies that a CAFO "proposes to discharge" if an objective assessment determines that the CAFO is designed, constructed, operated, or maintained such that a discharge will occur.  (73 FR 70424).

	In May 2010, EPA released Implementation Guidance on CAFO Regulations  -  CAFOs That Discharge or Are Proposing to Discharge, which provides CAFO owners and operators and NPDES permitting authorities guidance for evaluating whether a CAFO discharges or proposes to discharge (EPA-833-R-10-006).

NPDES CAFO Program Implementation Status

	EPA is moving forward vigorously to ensure that all CAFOs that need NPDES permits have them.  Specifically, EPA Headquarters and the ten EPA Regional offices are working with all NPDES-authorized States to revise existing NPDES CAFO programs as expeditiously as possible and issue NPDES permits to those CAFOs that need them.

	To date, approximately 40 percent of the estimated 19,200 CAFOs nationally have NPDES permits.   However, it is unclear how many CAFOs in the U.S. "discharge or propose to discharge" and therefore could ultimately need NPDES permits.  For the 2008 rule, EPA estimated that as many as 75 percent of all CAFOs could experience discharges based on standard operational profiles for CAFOs in the major animal sectors.

Upcoming NPDES Rulemaking to Require CAFOs to Report Facility Information

	EPA is undertaking a national rulemaking to collect basic facility information from all CAFOs.  The information collected will assist EPA and State permitting authorities in ensuring full implementation of the NPDES CAFO program and directing appropriate permitting, compliance assistance, and enforcement activities.  EPA agreed to initiate the rulemaking in its settlement agreement with environmental petitioners arising out of litigation on the 2008 NPDES CAFO regulations.  In the agreement, EPA and environmental petitioners agreed to the following terms:

         oo EPA would issue Duty-to-Apply guidance by May 2010 that provides more information on determining which CAFOs need NPDES permits.
         oo EPA would propose a rule to require all CAFOs to report basic facility information to the Agency, including but not limited to the following:
               oo Name and address of the owner and operator
               oo If contract operation, name and address of the integrator
               oo Location (longitude and latitude) of the operation
               oo Type of facility
               oo Number and type(s) of animals
               oo Type and capacity of manure storage
               oo Quantity of manure, process wastewater and litter generated annually by the CAFO
               oo Whether the CAFO land-applies
               oo Available acreage for land application
               oo If the CAFO land-applies, whether it implements a nutrient management plan for land application
               oo If the CAFO land-applies, whether it employs nutrient management practices and keeps records on site consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(e)
               oo If the CAFO does not land apply, alternative uses of manure, litter, and/or wastewater
               oo Whether the CAFO transfers manure off-site, and if so, quantity transferred to recipient(s) of transferred manure
               oo Whether the CAFO has applied for an NPDES permit
         oo EPA would propose the new information collection rulemaking by May 2011 and finalize the rulemaking by May 2012.

      The new rulemaking will be promulgated under §308 information collection authorities of the Clean Water Act.  Smaller animal feeding operations that are not CAFOs are not covered under the information collection rulemaking.

      At present, EPA is in the pre-proposal stage of the rulemaking. The rulemaking process can be followed on EPA's Rulemaking Gateway at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/byRIN/2040-AF22?opendocument.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10249-10253]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3996]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0252; FRL-9269-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revisions To Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From
Consumer Related Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to
the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are approving revisions
to Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 115, which
the State submitted on March 4, 2010. These revisions remove the Texas
Portable Fuel Container rule as an ozone control strategy from the
Texas SIP for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution. In the submittal,
Texas demonstrates that Federal portable fuel container standards
promulgated by EPA in 2007 are expected to provide equal to or greater
emissions reductions than those resulting from the State regulations.
The EPA is approving these revisions pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on April 25, 2011
without further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by
March 28, 2011. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0252, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Please follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6comment.htm. Please click on ``6PD (Multimedia)'' and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-
0252. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents
per page for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dayana Medina, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

Outline

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Comparison of the Texas and Federal Portable Fuel Container
Regulations
IV. What is the effect of this action?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110 of the CAA requires States to develop air pollution
regulations and control strategies to ensure that air quality meets the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by EPA. The
NAAQS are established under section 109 of the CAA and currently
address six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    A SIP is a set of air pollution regulations, control strategies,
other means or techniques, and technical analyses developed by the
State, to ensure that air quality in the State meets the NAAQS. It is
required by section 110 and other provisions of the CAA. A SIP protects
air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of
origin. A SIP can be extensive, containing State regulations or other
enforceable documents and supporting information such as emissions
inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. Each
State must submit regulations and control strategies to EPA for
approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Revisions to the SIP must comply with Section 110(l) of the CAA which
states, ``Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State
under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reasonable
notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of this chapter.''

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Texas SIP for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution that pertains to
regulations which control VOC emissions from consumer related sources.
The revision repeals sections 115.620--115.622, 115.626, 115.627, and
115.629 of 30 TAC Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile
Organic Compounds, Subchapter G, Consumer-Related Sources. This
revision consists of the repeal of the Texas Portable Fuel Container
rule, as submitted to EPA by the TCEQ on March 4, 2010. This revision
is substantive in nature, and eliminates the redundancy that has been
created with the adoption by EPA of the Federal portable fuel container
regulations in 2007. We are approving this revision in accordance with
section 110 of the CAA.
    On October 27, 2004, the State adopted the Texas Portable Fuel
Container rule, which set requirements for portable fuel containers and
spouts sold or distributed in Texas that are manufactured on or after
December 31, 2005. The Texas Portable Fuel Container rule established
design criteria for ``no-spill'' portable fuel containers based
primarily on standards adopted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) in 2001. The purpose of the Texas Portable Fuel Container rule
was to lower VOC emissions in Texas from portable fuel containers that
spill or leak. EPA approved the Texas Portable

Fuel Container rule into the SIP on February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7041).
    On February 26, 2007, EPA adopted Federal portable fuel container
regulations that set new national standards for gasoline, diesel, and
kerosene portable fuel containers.\1\ Based on this rulemaking, all
containers manufactured on or after January 1, 2009, are required to
comply with the Federal standards. The Federal regulations can be found
at 40 CFR part 59 subpart F. The Federal regulations are very similar
to the revised portable fuel container regulations adopted by the CARB
on September 15, 2005. The standards in the Federal portable fuel
container regulations aim to reduce nationwide hydrocarbon emissions
from containers due to evaporation, permeation, and spillage. The
portable fuel container standards in the national regulations are more
stringent than those found in the Texas regulations. Texas repealed the
State portable fuel container regulations on February 10, 2010, and
submitted this SIP revision to EPA on March 4, 2010. In their
submittal, Texas asserted that the State portable fuel container
regulations have become unnecessary with EPA's implementation of the
more stringent Federal regulations, and that the repeal of the State
rule is intended to eliminate duplication and to provide a clear
regulatory structure for manufacturers who may otherwise become
confused about which standards they are required to comply with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 72 FR 8432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is approving this revision to the SIP because it is expected
that reliance on the more stringent Federal portable fuel container
standards will ensure that emission reductions equivalent to or greater
than those in the repealed Texas portable fuel container regulations
will continue to be achieved in the State of Texas. Accordingly, it is
expected that this SIP revision will not have a negative impact neither
on the emission reductions claimed in the Texas SIP, nor in Texas'
attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. Thus, EPA can approve this revision
in compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA.

III. Comparison of the Texas and Federal Portable Fuel Container
Regulations

    On October 27, 2004, the State adopted the Texas Portable Fuel
Container rule, which set provisions specifying performance standards,
testing requirements, and labeling requirements for portable fuel
containers and spouts sold or distributed in Texas that are
manufactured on or after December 31, 2005. The Texas Portable Fuel
Container rule did not apply to or affect in any way the sale of
portable fuel containers or spouts manufactured prior to December 31,
2005. The Texas Portable Fuel Container rule established design
criteria for ``no-spill'' portable fuel containers based primarily on
presently outdated standards adopted by the CARB in 2001. The purpose
of the Texas Portable Fuel Container rule was to lower VOC emissions in
Texas from portable fuel containers that spill or leak. The State
regulations mandated that portable fuel containers must have only one
opening in the vessel. Spouts for these containers must (1) have an
automatic shutoff device to prevent spilling, (2) automatically close
and seal when removed from the fuel tank, (3) seal without leakage when
affixed to the portable fuel container vessel, and (4) meet fuel flow
rate and fuel flow cut-off standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For a more detailed description of the PFC requirements in
the Texas PFC regulations approved into the Texas SIP, please see 70
FR 7041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 26, 2007, EPA adopted Federal portable fuel container
regulations that set new national standards for gasoline, diesel, and
kerosene portable fuel containers.\3\ Based on this rulemaking, all
containers manufactured on or after January 1, 2009, are required to
comply with the Federal portable fuel container standards. As of July
1, 2009, manufacturers and importers must not enter into U.S. commerce
any products manufactured prior to January 1, 2009, which do not meet
the Federal standards. The Federal regulations are very similar to the
revised portable fuel container regulations adopted by the CARB on
September 15, 2005. The standards in the Federal portable fuel
container regulations aim to reduce nationwide hydrocarbon emissions
from containers due to evaporation, permeation, and spillage. Rather
than establishing design criteria for portable fuel containers, the
Federal regulations established a performance-based standard of 0.3
grams per gallon per day (g/gal/day) of hydrocarbons to control
evaporative and permeation losses. The standard is based on the
performance of best available control technologies, such as durable
permeation barriers, automatically closing spouts, and cans that are
well-sealed, and it is expected that in order to comply with the
performance-based standard, manufacturers will incorporate these
control technologies in the design of their containers. The Federal
standard is measured based on the emissions from the container over a
diurnal test cycle, after the container has been preconditioned by
going through three durability aging cycles, a fuel soak to allow the
hydrocarbon permeation rate to stabilize, and a durability
demonstration of the spout. These test procedures ensure that
containers meet the emissions standard over a range of in-use
conditions such as different temperatures, different fuels, and taking
into consideration factors affecting durability.\4\ In order to insure
that containers meet the emission standard in use over the life of the
container, the Federal regulations also established a new certification
and compliance program. The Federal regulations also require an
emissions warranty period of one year to be provided by the
manufacturer of the portable fuel container to the consumer. The
warranty covers emissions-related materials defects and breakage under
normal use, which promotes the objective of the rule by helping ensure
that manufacturers will ``stand behind'' their product if they fail in-
use, thus improving product design and performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 72 FR 8432.
    \4\ A more detailed description of the test procedures can be
found at 72 FR 8432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comparison of the State and Federal regulations demonstrates that
the Federal regulations adopted more stringent portable fuel container
standards than those found in the Texas regulations.\5\ While the Texas
regulations merely adopted design criteria for portable fuel containers
and spouts, the performance-based standard established by the Federal
regulations, along with the various other requirements, including test
procedures, and the certification and compliance program, help ensure
that containers meet the emission standard over a range of in-use
conditions. Although the Federal regulations do not specify required
design criteria for portable fuel containers, it is expected that in
order to comply with the performance-based standard, manufacturers will
have to use best available control technologies such as durable
permeation barriers, automatically closing spouts, and cans that are
well-sealed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the TSD for a complete description of our evaluation.
The TSD can be found in the docket for this rulemaking, and is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is EPA-
R06-OAR-2010-0252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the submittal Texas submitted to EPA on November 16, 2004,
requesting approval of the Texas Portable Fuel Container rule into the
SIP, Texas estimated that the reduction in spills and evaporation
expected from the State

portable fuel container regulations would eventually reduce statewide
emissions from portable fuel containers by 45%.\6\ In the February 26,
2007 rulemaking in which EPA approved the Federal portable fuel
container regulations, we provided estimates of the national reductions
in VOC emissions expected from the Federal standards. We estimated that
in 2010, national VOC emissions from portable fuel containers will be
reduced by 19% because of reduced permeation, spillage, and evaporative
emissions.\7\ We also estimated that in 2015, 2020, and 2030, the
national VOC emissions from portable fuel containers will be reduced by
61% for each year. In the submittal for the present rulemaking, Texas
also submitted a table comparing the estimated statewide VOC emissions
reductions in ozone season tons per day expected from the Federal and
State portable fuel container regulations.\8\ According to these
estimates, the statewide VOC emissions reductions expected from the
Federal and State regulations for the year 2002 are equal to each
other. For each of the years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019,
the estimated statewide VOC emissions reductions expected from the
Federal portable fuel container regulations exceed those expected from
the State regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This submittal dated November 16, 2004, can be found in the
docket for the rulemaking in which we approved the Texas PFC
regulations (70 FR 7041), and is available at http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is R06-OAR-2005-TX-0001.
    \7\ See 72 FR 8432.
    \8\ The submittal can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking, and is available at http://www.regulations.gov. The
docket number is EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the effect of this action?

    This action approves revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain to
regulations to control VOC emissions from consumer related sources.
These revisions remove the Texas portable fuel container regulations as
an ozone control strategy from the Texas SIP for the Control of Ozone
Air Pollution because more stringent national standards are in place.
Portable fuel containers sold or distributed in Texas must meet
national VOC emission standards and related requirements found in 40
CFR part 59 subpart F.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving revisions to the Texas SIP pertaining to control
of VOC emissions from consumer related sources.
    We have evaluated the State's submittal and have determined that it
meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA air
quality regulations. Therefore, we are approving revisions to the Texas
SIP which repeal the Texas Portable Fuel Container rule because it is
expected that reliance on the more restrictive Federal portable fuel
container standards will ensure that emission reductions equivalent to
or greater than those in the repealed Texas portable fuel container
regulations will continue to be achieved. Accordingly, it is expected
that this SIP revision will not have a negative impact neither on the
emission reductions claimed in the Texas SIP, nor in Texas' attainment
of the NAAQS for ozone.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no relevant
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions if
relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on
April 25, 2011 without further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse comments by March 28, 2011. If we receive relevant adverse
comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please
note that if we receive adverse comments on an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments
or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 25, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: February 9, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. Section 52.2270 is amended as follows:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended under Chapter 115 (Reg 5), Subchapter G, by
removing the centered heading ``Division 2: Portable Fuel Containers''
and by removing the entries under Division 2 for Sections 115.620
through 115.629.
0
b. The second table in paragraph (e) entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' is amended by adding to the end of the table a new entry entitled
``Texas Portable Fuel Container State Implementation Plan'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
      Name of SIP  provision          geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Texas Portable Fuel Container      All Affected 1997          3/4/2010  2/24/2011 [Insert
 State Implementation Plan.         Eight-Hour Ozone                     FR page number
                                    Standard                             where document
                                    Nonattainment And                    begins].
                                    Near Nonattainment
                                    Areas In The State
                                    Of Texas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-3996 Filed 2-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9907-9908]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 13531-000]

 Hydrodynamics, Inc.; Notice Denying Late Intervention

    On June 24, 2010, Commission staff issued a three-year preliminary
permit to Hydrodynamics, Inc. (Hydrodynamics) to study the feasibility
of its proposed East Rosebud Hydroelectric Project No. 13531-000, to be
located on East Rosebud Creek in Carbon County, Montana.\1\ On January
17, 2013, Friends of East Rosebud, Inc. (Friends of East Rosebud) filed
a late motion to intervene in the proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hydrodynamics, Inc., 131 FERC ] 62,260 (2010). The permit
was issued for a term of 36 months. The permit will therefore expire
on May 31, 2013, or on the date Hydrodynamics files an acceptable
development application, whichever occurs first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hydrodynamics' permit was issued and became administratively final
two years and seven months ago, before

Friends of East Rosebud submitted its motion to intervene.\2\
Hydrodynamics has not submitted a development application for its
proposed project. Therefore, there is no open proceeding in which to
intervene, and Friends of East Rosebud's motion to intervene must be
dismissed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A Commission order granting a preliminary permit is final on
the date it is issued unless a party to the proceeding petitions for
rehearing within 30 days of issuance. Since no one filed a timely
rehearing petition, Hydrodynamic's preliminary permit proceeding was
closed and the preliminary permit became final and unreviewable.
    \3\ Should Hydrodynamics file a development application for its
proposed project, notice of the application will be published, and
interested entities, including the Friends of East Rosebud will have
the opportunity to intervene and present its views concerning the
project. To the extent that the Friends of East Rosebud seeks to be
kept informed of any new activity in the docket, it may register and
eSubscribe to the docket at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing
by the Commission of this dismissal must be filed within 30 days of the
date of issuance of this notice pursuant to section 313(a) of the
Federal Power Act and section 385.713 of the Commission's regulations,
18 CFR 385.713 (2012).

    Dated: February 6, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03151 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"Grady, Jay"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>08/09/2007 08:01 PM	To
	Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
	"Isaacson, Scott"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	bcc

	Subject
	Up Dated Sample Results for California Portland Cement Company

	History:
		This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Keith,

As we discussed today here are the updated sampling results for Hg and TOC
for all three plants.  There were minor changes to a few of the results as
the Lab. did their QC review.  Let me know if you have any other
questions.  The Lab. QC is now complete and we anticipate no further
revisions to the data.

Jay Grady
Senior Manager Environmental Matters
California Portland Cement Company
(626) 852-6262


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44904-44905]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4829]

Jin Su Park: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring Jin
Su Park for a period of 10 years from importing or offering for import
any drug into the United States. FDA bases this order on a finding that
Mr. Park was convicted of one felony count under Federal law for
Importing Merchandise Contrary to Law, Causing an Act to be Done and of
one felony count of introducing Misbranded Drugs into Interstate
Commerce, causing an Act to be Done. The factual basis supporting both
of Mr. Park's convictions, as described below, is conduct relating to
the importation into the United States of a drug or controlled
substance. Mr. Park was given notice of the proposed debarment and was
given an opportunity to request a hearing to show why he should not be
debarred. As of January 19, 2019 (30 days after receipt of the notice),
Mr. Park had not responded. Mr. Park's failure to respond and request a
hearing constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this
matter.

DATES: This order is applicable July 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of
Enforcement, Office of Strategic Planning and Operational Policy,
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(D))
permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States if the FDA finds, as required by
section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been
convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the
United States of any drug or controlled substance.
    On March 25, 2019, Mr. Park was convicted, as defined in section
306(l)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, when the court accepted his plea of
guilty and entered judgment against him for the felony offenses of
Importing Merchandise Contrary to Law, Causing an Act to be Done in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 545, 2(b) and of Introducing Misbranded Drugs
into Interstate Commerce, causing an Act to be Done in violation of 21
U.S.C. 331(a), 352, and 333(a)(2) (sections 301(a), 502, and 303(a)(2)
of the FD&C Act).
    The FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the
felony convictions referenced herein. The factual basis for these
convictions is as follows: As contained in the Plea Agreement, filed on
February 7, 2019, Mr. Park did, no later than 2015, begin providing
minor assistance to his long-time friend ``J.L.'' who owned and
operated several companies that manufactured and distributed misbranded
male sexual enhancement pills across the United States. In February
2017, J.L.'s operation was shut down after the FDA and Department of
Homeland Security executed a search warrant at J.L.'s pill business as
part of an investigation into J.L.'s smuggling of Tadalafil into the
United States from China. Mr. Park knew that J.L. had been unlawfully
selling misbranded pills containing Tadalafil and other active
pharmaceutical ingredients smuggled from China. Mr. Park took
approximately 14,000 male sexual enhancement pills, all containing
undisclosed Tadalafil, from J.L.'s business, and stored them at Mr.
Park's home. Mr. Park then set up a new company, RNG Global Management
and Trading Group, Inc. (RNG). Mr. Park repackaged the 14,000 pills
with new labeling that failed to disclose the presence of Tadalafil and
he commenced selling the misbranded pills to various customers
throughout the United States.
    Furthermore, in April 2018, Mr. Park ordered, and subsequently paid
for, five kilograms of Dapoxetine and five kilograms of Rhodiola rosea
from suppliers in China. Mr. Park had the Chinese supplier ship five
kilograms of Dapoxetine to him, through a Korean intermediary, in a
parcel mislabeled as containing, ``Glass Colour Sample (Zinc Sulfide)''
to a commercial mailbox Mr. Park controlled in Michigan. Mr. Park
subsequently had the same Chinese supplier ship to his Michigan mailbox
the five kilograms of Rhodiola rosea, through the same Korean
intermediary, in a parcel mislabeled as containing, ``Glass Colour
(Zinc Sulfide) Sample.'' Mr. Park intended to use both the Dapoxetine
and Rhodiola rosea in the male sexual enhancement pills he would sell.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Park by certified mail
on December 16, 2019, a notice proposing

to debar him for two consecutive 5-year periods (10 years) from
importing or offering for import any drug into the United States. The
proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C
Act that Mr. Park's felony convictions for introducing misbranded drugs
into interstate commerce and importing merchandise contrary to law were
for conduct relating to the importation into the United States of any
drug or controlled substance because he knew that the 14,000 pills
containing Tadalafil were illegally imported, yet Mr. Park decided to
repackage them and sell them to U.S. consumers. In addition, he did in
fact illegally import Dapoxetine and Rhodiola rosea and intended to
sell them to consumers in the United States.
    In proposing a debarment period, FDA weighed the considerations set
forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that it considered
applicable to Mr. Park's offenses, and concluded that each of these
felony offenses independently warranted a 5-year period of debarment,
and proposed that these debarment periods be served consecutively under
section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii).
    The proposal informed Mr. Park of the proposed debarment and
offered Mr. Park an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30
days from the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the
request, and advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted
a waiver of the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions
concerning this action. Mr. Park received the proposal and notice of
opportunity for a hearing on December 20, 2019. Mr. Park failed to
request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and
has, therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and waived any
contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr. Park
has been convicted of two felony counts under Federal law for conduct
relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or
controlled substance. FDA finds that each offense should be accorded a
debarment period of 5 years. Under section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the
FD&C Act, in the case of a person debarred for multiple offenses, FDA
shall determine whether the periods of debarment shall run concurrently
or consecutively. FDA has concluded that the 5-year period of debarment
for each of the two offenses of conviction will be served
consecutively, resulting in a total debarment period of 10 years.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Park is debarred for a
period of 10 years from importing or offering for import any drug into
the United States, effective (see DATES). Pursuant to section 301(cc)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or offering for
import into the United States of any drug or controlled substance by,
with the assistance of, or at the direction of Mr. Park is a prohibited
act.
    Any application by Mr. Park for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-4829 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff (see
ADDRESSSES). All such submissions are to be filed in four copies. The
public availability of information in these submissions is governed by
21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

    Dated: July 17, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-16085 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71710-71711]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0993]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed; Approval of Information Collection: General
Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA's primary requirement is for annual hours flown,
optimal determination of sample size is based on flight time variation
by state and aircraft type, and a sampling fraction is determined for
each cell with a no-zero population. Sample units are selected randomly
within each stratum. Respondents to this survey are owners of general
aviation aircraft.
    This information is used by FAA, NTSB, and other government
agencies, the aviation industry, and others for safety assessment,
planning, forecasting, cost/benefit analysis, and to target areas for
research.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:

    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: N/A.
    By fax: N/A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Shane Bertish] by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: N/A.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    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.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-6160.
    Title: General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey.
    Form Numbers: 1800-54.
    Type of Review: Renewal.
    Background: Title 49, United States Code, empowers the Secretary of
Transportation to collect and disseminate information relative to civil
aeronautics, to study the possibilities for development of air commerce
and the aeronautical industries, and to make long-range plans for, and
formulate policy with respect to, the orderly development and use of
the navigable airspace, radar installations and all other aids for air
navigation. These data are necessary to assess performance of the
Department of Transportation in meeting the strategic goal for General
Aviation safety as described in the Destination 2025 Strategic Plan.
    The agency and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) use
the exposure data, both by itself and in conjunction with aircraft age,
to calculate accident rates, which are used to compare safety over time
and safety performance among different aircraft types and
configurations.
    The agency and the NTSB will use the exposure data for public use
aircraft to calculate accident rates for those aircraft. The NTSB is
now required to investigate accidents involving public use aircraft.
This is a responsibility assigned by Public Law 103-411.
    Respondents: Owners of general aviation aircraft.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 39,000 responses; 13,000 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2020.
Parasha Vincent Flowers,
Program Manager, Program Management & Development Branch, AVP-220,
Office of Accident Investigation & Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2020-24874 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P