[Federal Register: September 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 181)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57188-57191]
[DOCID:fr20se10-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2010-0561; FRL-9203-3]

Rhode Island: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Rhode Island has applied to EPA for final
authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA determined that
these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization and recently authorized all but one of the State's
changes through an immediate final rule. However, EPA also stated in
that rule that it would address the authorization of the state's
requirements regarding EPA's Zinc Fertilizer Rule in a separate final
rule (following the proposed rule) as it anticipated possible adverse
comments that would oppose the Federal authorization of Rhode Island
for this particular rule. There was, in fact, an adverse comment filed
objecting to EPA authorizing Rhode Island for the Zinc Fertilizer Rule.
Today's action responds to that comment but does not agree with it and,
thus, finalizes the Agency's decision to authorize Rhode Island for
EPA's Zinc Fertilizer Rule. In addition, the comment also objected to
EPA authorizing Rhode Island for the Burden Reduction Initiative.
Accordingly, EPA is partially withdrawing the immediate final rule
insofar as it authorized Rhode Island for the Burden Reduction
Initiative. However, EPA is now responding to the comment and again not
agreeing with it and, thus, today's action also authorizes Rhode Island
for the Burden Reduction Initiative. No objections were filed to EPA
regarding authorizing the other revisions submitted by Rhode Island.
Accordingly, the immediate final rule is not being withdrawn as to
these other revisions, which will continue to be authorized pursuant to
the immediate final rule.

DATES: Today's decision approving the authorization of Rhode Island's
hazardous waste revisions as they relate to the Zinc Fertilizer Rule
and Burden Reduction Initiative will be effective September 24, 2010
(as are other aspects of Rhode Island's hazardous waste program
revisions approved in the aforementioned immediate final rule).

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2010-0561. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although it may be
listed in the index, some information might not be publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the following two locations: (i) Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management, 235 Promenade St., Providence, RI 02908-5767,
by appointment only through the Office of Technical and Customer
Assistance, tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> and (ii) EPA Region I Library, 5 Post
Office Square, 1st Floor, Boston, MA 02109-3912, by appointment only,
(617) 918-1990.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Biscaia, RCRA Waste Management
Section, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration (OSRR 07-1), EPA
New England--Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA
02109-3912; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (617) 918-
0642, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As stated in EPA's recent immediate final
rule, 75 FR 43409 (July 26, 2010), because of anticipated adverse
public comment on the authorization of Rhode Island's Hazardous Waste
Program revisions for EPA's Zinc Fertilizer Rule, the authorization of
that rule never was included in the immediate final rule. Instead, we
are in today's action making a separate determination (following an
opportunity for public comment) regarding the authorization of Rhode
Island for the Zinc Fertilizer Rule. As noted above, in response to the
adverse public comment, we also are partially withdrawing the immediate
final rule insofar as it authorized Rhode Island for the Burden
Reduction Initiative. However, we are not agreeing with the comment
and, thus, are authorizing Rhode Island for the Burden Reductive
Initiative.
    For general information regarding why revisions to state programs
are necessary and what aspects of Rhode Island's hazardous waste
program have been previously authorized as well those provisions which
were authorized by the immediate final rule referenced above, please
see 75 FR 43409 (July 26, 2010).
    The following information relates only to the authorization of
Rhode Island for hazardous waste revisions as they relate to EPA's Zinc
Fertilizer Rule and Burden Reduction Initiative.

A. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    We have concluded that Rhode Island's application to revise its
authorized program with regard to EPA's Zinc Fertilizer Rule and Burden
Reduction Initiative meets all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Rhode Island
final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the
changes relating to the Zinc Fertilizer Rule and Burden Reduction
Initiative as described in the authorization application. Rhode
Island's Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) has
responsibility for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program covered
by its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal
requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA
promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized
States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will
implement any such requirements and prohibitions in Rhode Island,
including implementation of the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
requirements in 40 CFR part 268 because Rhode Island has not yet sought
and obtained authorization for those requirements. Regulated entities
in Rhode Island must comply with these directly administered EPA
requirements, in addition to the State hazardous waste requirements.

B. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Rhode Island
subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State
requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to
comply with RCRA. Rhode Island has enforcement responsibilities under
its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but
EPA also retains its full authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008,
3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, authority to:
     Perform inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses or reports.
     Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits.
     Take enforcement actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the

regulations for which Rhode Island is being authorized by today's
action are already effective under State law, and are not changed by
today's action.

C. Proposed Rule

    On July 26, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule (75 FR 43478) in
which we proposed granting authorization of changes to Rhode Island's
Hazardous Waste program. This was included as a companion document to
the immediate final rule in order to ensure the opportunity for public
comment. In this proposed rule, EPA noted that because of anticipated
adverse comments related to the authorization of Rhode Island for
revisions relating to EPA's Zinc Fertilizer Rule, the agency would make
a separate determination (following the opportunity for public comment)
regarding the authorization of Rhode Island for the Zinc Fertilizer
Rule. Thus, today's action makes a separate determination relating to
the authorization of Rhode Island for revisions which pertain to EPA's
Zinc Fertilizer Rule. As noted above, today's action also authorizes
Rhode Island for the Burden Reduction Initiative.

D. What changes are we authorizing with this action?

    On June 17, 2010 EPA received Rhode Island's complete program
revision application dated June 15, 2010 seeking authorization for
their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. The RCRA program
revisions for which Rhode Island is seeking authorization addressed by
this action relate only to EPA's Zinc Fertilizer Rule and the Burden
Reduction Initiative. (Although the application sought authorization
for many other program revisions as well, those provisions were
addressed in the aforementioned immediate final rule published on July
26, 2010.) The State has adopted the Federal requirements relating to
the Zinc Fertilizer Rule, 67 FR 48393 (July 24, 2002) and the Burden
Reduction Initiative, 71 FR 1686 (April 24, 2006) at Rule 2.00 in its
general incorporation by reference of Federal requirements through July
1, 2008 (except as otherwise noted in the following paragraph). The
State's authorization application consists of a cover letter requesting
authorization, a copy of RIDEM's Rules and Regulations for Hazardous
Waste Management dated June 2010, regulatory checklists (specifically
related to this action, CL 200--Zinc Fertilizer Rule and CL 213--Burden
Reduction Initiative) comparing the State and Federal requirements and
a Supplement to the Attorney General's Statement.
    We are now making a final decision that Rhode Island's hazardous
waste program revisions which relate to EPA's Zinc Fertilizer Rule and
the Burden Reduction Initiative satisfy all of the requirements
necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we grant Rhode
Island final authorization for the specific program changes which
relate to these rules as identified below. Note, the Federal
requirements are identified by their checklist (CL) number and rule
description followed by the corresponding state regulatory analog(s)
(``Rule(s)'') from Rhode Island's Rules and Regulations for Hazardous
Waste Management as in effect on June 7, 2010: CL 200--Zinc Fertilizer
Rule, 67 FR 48393, July 24, 2002: Rules 2.2C and 2.2H; CL 213--Burden
Reduction Initiative, 71 FR 16862, April 24, 2006 (other than LDR
requirements): Rules 2.2 C, 2.2 C.4, 2.2 F, 2.2 G, 2.2 I, 2.2 J, 7.0
B.82, 8.1 A.17, 8.1 A.41, 8.1 A.45 and 8.1 A.64.

E. Response to Comments

    The adverse comment filed was from Ms. Patricia Anne Martin on
behalf of the organization Safe Food and Fertilizer. The comment
objects first to the EPA's decision in the Zinc Fertilizer Rule to
allow the application to the land of zinc fertilizers made from
hazardous wastes or hazardous secondary materials. Such application to
the land is allowed under the Zinc Fertilizer Rule only when
contaminants are below levels determined by the EPA in that Rule to be
protective of human health and the environment (see 40 CFR
261.4(a)(21)), but Safe Food and Fertilizer disagrees with the EPA
determinations and states that the ``use of hazardous waste in
fertilizer has not been proven safe.'' The comment also objects to the
EPA's decisions in the Burden Reduction Initiative rulemaking to allow
one time notices of shipments of zinc fertilizer and to allow such
notices to be kept on file (see 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6) (July 1, 2008)) as
opposed to the prior requirements that there be notices regarding each
shipment and that such notices be sent to the relevant EPA office or
authorized State (see 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6) (July 1, 2005). Based on these
concerns, Safe Food and Fertilizer asks that EPA Region I not authorize
Rhode Island for the Zinc Fertilizer Rule or the Burden Reduction
Initiative.
    In the proposed rule regarding this matter, the Region had
suggested that if any commenter objected to the Zinc Fertilizer Rule,
it should have addressed its comments to the EPA prior to the adoption
of that Rule. In response, Safe Food and Fertilizer asserts that it did
object to the Zinc Fertilizer Rule but that the EPA ``ignored'' the
comments.
    In the proposed rule regarding this matter, the Region had further
suggested that if any commenter objected to Rhode Island adopting the
Zinc Fertilizer Rule, it should have filed comments with Rhode Island
during its comment period on its rules, rather than waiting and asking
EPA to not authorize the State rules. The Region pointed out that while
under RCRA, a State has the right to be more stringent than a Federal
rule, it also has the right not to be more stringent and thus a State
may simply track the Federal RCRA rules. Thus, if a commenter wants a
State not to adopt a Federal rule such as the Zinc Fertilizer Rule but
rather to be more stringent, it should file timely comments with the
State. In response, Safe Food and Fertilizer asserts that Rhode Island
does not have the right ``not to be more stringent'' than the Zinc
Fertilizer Rule, since by adopting the Zinc Fertilizer Rule, Rhode
Island is being less protective than what Safe Food and Fertilizer
believes the correct minimum Federal standards should be as mandated by
the Congress. However, Safe Food and Fertilizer does not explain why it
did not file comments to Rhode Island.
    Under the RCRA statute, the EPA must promulgate Federal RCRA
regulations that are protective of human health and the environment. 42
U.S.C. 6922-6924. Then the EPA is further directed to authorize State
RCRA programs if they are ``equivalent'' to the Federal programs and
meet other requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6926. This involves comparing the
State regulations to the Federal regulations. State regulations may be
``more stringent'' than the Federal requirements or may simply be
``equivalent,'' but may not be less stringent. 42 U.S.C. 6929. The
statute clearly contemplates a two step process. First, the EPA issues
its regulations and any person disagreeing with the EPA's
determinations generally must challenge them in court within 90 days.
42 U.S.C. 6976. Second, when the EPA later authorizes State
regulations, it simply compares them to the federal regulations. The
statute does not contemplate that whether the Federal regulations are
adequately protective should be revisited in the course of determining
whether to authorize State regulations.
    Here, Safe Food and Fertilizer did object to the EPA adopting the
Zinc Fertilizer Rule and indeed challenged the Rule in court. However,
their petition was denied by the court and the regulations generally
were upheld. Safe Food and Fertilizer v. Environmental

Protection Agency, 350 F.3d 1263 (DC Cir. 2003). The Zinc Fertilizer
Rule remains in effect at the federal level. The Burden Reduction
Initiative Rule was not challenged by either Safe Food and Fertilizer
or anyone else. As a result, it also remains in effect at the Federal
level. Thus these are the Federal requirements that Rhode Island must
meet in order to obtain authorization for these particular rules. While
States need not adopt the Zinc Fertilizer Rule or the Burden Reduction
Initiative, since not doing so would make them more stringent than the
Federal rules, States are allowed to adopt these rules. Rhode Island
decided to adopt and seek authorization for these Federal rules. In its
regulations, Rhode Island has adopted the Zinc Fertilizer Rule
requirements exactly, by incorporating them by reference in its Rules
2.2C and 2.2H. Thus Rhode Island clearly is being equivalent to and as
stringent as this Federal rule. While Safe Food and Fertilizer may
disagree with the Federal rule in question, the Region is appropriately
comparing the State rules to the Federal rules, rather than comparing
the State rules to what Safe Food and Fertilizer thinks the Federal
rules should be.
    Rhode Island also has adopted the Burden Reduction Initiative Rule
requirements, with some more stringent revisions (not relevant to the
Zinc Fertilizer Rule), by incorporating them by reference in its Rules
2.2C, 2.2C.4, 2.2F, 2.2G, 2.2I, 2.2J, 7.0B82 and 8.1A.64. However,
Rhode Island has not adopted any of the Federal Land Disposal
Restriction (LDR) rules. See Rhode Island's Rule 2.2 B. Thus, as
earlier explained in the immediate final rule, Rhode Island is not
being authorized for any of the LDR Rules. The reduced reporting
requirement that Safe Food and Fertilizer is objecting to is an LDR
regulation-40 CFR 268.7(b)(6). Thus, Rhode Island is not being
authorized for this particular regulation. That reduced reporting
requirement actually is in effect in Rhode Island, but that is because
the EPA is directly administering the Federal LDR program in Rhode
Island and the reduced reporting requirement is part of the federal
program. But this is a result of the EPA issuing the Burden Reduction
Initiative Rule in 2006, not a result of today's authorization. Thus,
insofar as Safe Food and Fertilizer is objecting to Rhode Island being
authorized for 40 CFR 268.7(b)(6), its comment is in error, since Rhode
Island is not being authorized for that regulation. Insofar as Safe
Food and Fertilizer is otherwise objecting to Rhode Island being
authorized for the Burden Reduction Initiative, its comment is in error
for the same reasons why its objection to the authorization of Rhode
Island for the Zinc Fertilizer Rule is in error. That is, a State has
the right not to be more stringent than the Federal regulations and is
being ``equivalent'' to the federal regulations when it tracks the
Federal regulations.
    Thus, the Region does not agree with Safe Food and Fertilizer's
comment that it should not authorize these Rhode Island regulations.
Thus the regulations are being authorized. The Region continues to
encourage Safe Food and Fertilizer to file timely comments with the
States during future program updates, if it believes that the States
should not adopt the Zinc Fertilizer Rule or should revisit past
adoptions of the Zinc Fertilizer Rule. If, alternatively, Safe Food and
Fertilizer believes that the EPA should reconsider and change the
federal regulations, it needs to request this at the national level. A
Region does not have the authority to change the national regulations.

F. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action (RCRA
State Authorization) from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993); therefore, this action is not subject to
review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the
purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Because this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under
State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it 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). For the same
reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect
Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects
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, as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State
requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    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 document 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 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: September 9, 2010.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2010-23401 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 55)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13682-13684]
[DOCID:fr23mr10-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0273; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-134-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400
aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin
retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident
involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off.
Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to
repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device
including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the
retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal
position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The
loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm
and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of
nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of
directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take
off or landing.
* * * * *

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

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room

W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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 Operations office
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 Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0273;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-134-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 based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2009-29, dated June 29, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400
aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin
retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident
involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off.
Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to
repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device
including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the
retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal
position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The
loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm
and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of
nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of
directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take
off or landing.
To prevent the potential failure of the pivot pin retention bolt,
Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification which includes a
new retention bolt, a reverse orientation of the retention bolt and
a rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity sensor cover to
provide clearance for the re-oriented retention bolt.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-65, Revision A, dated
March 2, 2009. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 63 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $22,365, or $355 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0273; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-134-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 7, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-
401, and DHC-8-402 series airplanes, certificated in any category;
serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4238
inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400
aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin
retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident
involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off.
Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to
repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device
including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the
retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal
position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The
loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm
and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of
nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of
directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take
off or landing.
    To prevent the potential failure of the pivot pin retention
bolt, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification which
includes a new retention bolt, a reverse orientation of the
retention bolt and a rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity
sensor cover to provide clearance for the re-oriented retention
bolt.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD: Modify the NLG trailing arm by incorporating Bombardier
Modification Summary 4-113599, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, Revision A,
dated March 2, 2009.
    (2) Incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary 4-113599 in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-65, dated December 17, 2008, is also
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)
of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax 516-794-553. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29,
dated June 29, 2009; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65,
Revision A, dated March 2, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 17, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-6306 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48609-48611]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31159; Amdt. No. 3769]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective October 19, 2017. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal

Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending,
suspending, or removes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs. The
complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff
Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The
applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A,
and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2017.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 9 November 2017

Athens/Albany, OH, Ohio University, ILS OR LOC RWY 25, Amdt 2
Athens/Albany, OH, Ohio University, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Amdt 2
Athens/Albany, OH, Ohio University, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2
Baker City, OR, Baker City Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2A
Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport, TN, Tri-Cities, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 7A

Effective 7 December 2017

Fayetteville, AR, Drake Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 7
Hawthorne, CA, Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Muni, LOC RWY 25, Amdt
12
Hawthorne, CA, Jack Northrop Field/Hawthorne Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY
25, Amdt 1
Livermore, CA, Livermore Muni, ILS RWY 25R, Amdt 9
Livermore, CA, Livermore Muni, LIVERMORE THREE, Graphic DP
Livermore, CA, Livermore Muni, LOC RWY 25R, Amdt 1
Livermore, CA, Livermore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25R, Amdt 2
Santa Maria, CA, Santa Maria Pub/Capt G Allan Hancock Fld, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 30, Orig-E
College Park, MD, College Park, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-D, CANCELED
College Park, MD, College Park, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
College Park, MD, College Park, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Detroit, MI, Coleman A Young Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-B
Detroit, MI, Coleman A Young Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-C
Detroit, MI, Coleman A Young Muni, VOR RWY 33, Amdt 28B
Joplin, MO, Joplin Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Wayne, NE., Wayne Muni/Stan Morris Fld, NDB RWY 18, Orig-B, CANCELED
Wayne, NE., Wayne Muni/Stan Morris Fld, NDB RWY 36, Orig-B, CANCELED
White Plains, NY, Westchester County, ILS OR LOC RWY 16, ILS RWY 16
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 16 (SA CAT II), Amdt 25B
White Plains, NY, Westchester County, ILS OR LOC RWY 34, Amdt 5B
White Plains, NY, Westchester County, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16, Amdt 1B
White Plains, NY, Westchester County, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34, Amdt 3C
White Plains, NY, Westchester County, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16, Orig-C
White Plains, NY, Westchester County, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34, Orig-C
Oklahoma City, OK, Will Rogers World, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 12C
Oklahoma City, OK, Will Rogers World, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17R, Amdt 1C
Butler, PA, Pittsburgh/Butler Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 9
Butler, PA, Pittsburgh/Butler Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 2

Butler, PA, Pittsburgh/Butler Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 2
Butler, PA, Pittsburgh/Butler Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 4
Carlisle, PA, Carlisle, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Carlisle, PA, Carlisle, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
Carlisle, PA, Carlisle, RNAV (GPS)-C, Orig-A, CANCELED
Carlisle, PA, Carlisle, VOR-A, Orig-A, CANCELED
Johnstown, PA, John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria Co, VOR Y RWY 23, Amdt
8A
Johnstown, PA, John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria Co, VOR Z RWY 23, Amdt
4A
Columbia, SC, Columbia Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 2B
Columbia, SC, Columbia Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1C
Columbia, SC, Columbia Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2B
Columbia, SC, Columbia Metropolitan, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1C
Hilton Head Island, SC, Hilton Head, LOC RWY 21, Amdt 6
Hilton Head Island, SC, Hilton Head, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Amdt 1
Hilton Head Island, SC, Hilton Head, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Amdt 1
Hilton Head Island, SC, Hilton Head, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Hilton Head Island, SC, Hilton Head, VOR-A, Amdt 11
Sioux Falls, SD, Joe Foss Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 8A
Eau Claire, WI, Chippewa Valley Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22, Amdt 9
Eau Claire, WI, Chippewa Valley Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 2017-22501 Filed 10-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 46052]
[DOCID:fr16au07-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC07-122-000]

Energy East Corporation, Iberdrola, S.A.; Notice of Filing

August 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on August 1, 2007, Energy East Corporation, on
behalf of itself and its public utility affiliates and Iberdrola, S.A.,
on behalf of itself and its public utility affiliates filed a joint
application for authorization of merger under section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Part 33 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 10, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16042 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


DRAFT

2/5/08

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD (HSRB)

PUBLIC TELECONFERENCE MEETING

FEBRUARY 11, 2008

2:00 pm -5:00 pm (Eastern Time)

HSRB MEETING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF

DRAFT OCTOBER 24-26, 2008 HSRB MEETING REPORT *

HSRB WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA–HQ–ORD–2007–0942

Meeting location via telephone only

Members of the public may obtain the call in number at<PHONE_NUMBER>

( 2:00 PM	Convene Meeting and Identification of Board Members – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 2:10 PM	Meeting Administrative Procedures - Paul Lewis, Ph.D. (Designated Federal Officer, HSRB, OSA, EPA)

( 2:15 PM	Meeting Process – Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

( 2:20 PM	Public Comments

( 2:30 PM	Board Discussion and Decision on Report - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair)

Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies

Section 1: Introduction, Purpose and Scope

Section 2: Elements to be Considered in Study Conceptualization and Planning

Section 3: Ensuring Protection of Vulnerable Groups

Section 4: Privacy, Confidentiality, and Other Concerns Related to Observational Exposure Measurement Studies

Section 5: Creating an Appropriate Relationship Between the Participant and Researcher

Section 6: Building and Maintaining Appropriate Community and Stakeholder Relationships

Section 7: Designing and Implementing Strategies for Effective Communication

Sodium Azide

Science

Ethics

Science Issues in Mosquito Repellent Efficacy Field Research

Completed Field Efficacy Studies by Carroll-Loye Biological Research: SCI-001 and WPC-001

SCI-001

Science

Ethics

WPC-001

Science

Ethics

Carroll-Loye Biological Research Insect Repellent Efficacy Protocols

SPC-001

Science

Ethics

SPC-002

Science

Ethics

ICR Repellency Efficacy Protocol   A117

Science

Ethics

(4:45 PM	Summary and Next Steps - Celia Fisher, Ph.D. (HSRB Chair) and Paul Lewis, Ph.D. (Designated Federal Officer, HSRB, EPA)

( 5:00 PM 	Adjournment

*  Please be advised that agenda times are approximate. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Officer for this meeting, Paul Lewis via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email: <EMAIL_ADDRESS>   PAGE  1


[Federal Register: March 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 54)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14733-14735]
[DOCID:fr19mr08-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0327; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-21-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.a. Model A109E and A119
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
specified helicopters. This proposed AD results from a mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), the Technical Agent for Italy, with which we have a bilateral
agreement, states in the MCAI:

    Some cases of interference between the hydraulic pipe, P/N 109-
0761-65-103, and the tail rotor control rod assembly have been
detected on Model A109E helicopters.
    The interference, if not corrected, could damage the hydraulic
pipes and lead to the loss of the hydraulic system No. 1 in flight.
This AD * * * is issued to extend the same mandatory corrective
actions to A119 model due to its design similarity with A109E.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address this
unsafe condition.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from Agusta, 21017 Cascina Costa di Samarate (VA) Italy, Via Giovanni
Agusta 520, telephone 39 (0331) 229111, fax 39 (0331)<PHONE_NUMBER>95.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Streamlined Issuance of AD

    The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance
of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt
MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce
safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD
issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure
Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our
technical decisionmaking responsibilities to identify and correct
unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.
    This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service
information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to
correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from
the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language
principles.

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-2008-0327;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-21-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 based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued an
MCAI in the form of EASA AD No. 2007-0231, dated August 23, 2007
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for these Italian-certificated products. The MCAI states:

    Some cases of interference between the hydraulic pipe, P/N 109-
0761-65-103, and the tail rotor control rod assembly have been
detected on Model A109E helicopters.
    The interference, if not corrected, could damage the hydraulic
pipes and lead to the loss of the hydraulic system No. 1 in flight.
This AD * * * is issued to extend the same mandatory corrective
actions to A119 model due to its design similarity with A109E.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and service
information in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 109EP-73, dated
December 4, 2006, applicable to Model A109E helicopters, and BT No.
119-22, dated July 11, 2007, applicable to Model A119 helicopters. The
actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe
condition as that identified in the service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    These model helicopters have been approved by the aviation
authority of Italy, and are approved for operation in the United
States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information. We are proposing this AD 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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in

general, agree with their substance. However, this AD requires
replacement of hydraulic lines within 180 days, unless previously
accomplished, instead of replacing the hydraulic lines on the dates
specified in the MCAI. In making these changes, we do not intend to
differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and
related service information. These differences are highlighted in the
``Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI'' section in the proposed
AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 78 helicopters
of U.S. registry and that it would take about 2 work-hours per
helicopter to inspect and 16 work-hours per helicopter to replace the
hydraulic lines. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts would cost about $562 per helicopter, assuming these parts are no
longer under warranty. However, because the service information lists
these parts as covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will
be no charge for these parts.
    Therefore, as we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $112,320, or $1,440 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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:

Agusta. S.p.a.: Docket No. FAA-2008-0327; Directorate Identifier
2007-SW-21-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 18, 2008.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Agusta S.p.a. Model A109E and A119
helicopters, with hydraulic lines, part number (P/N) 109-0761-64-103
or P/N 109-0761-65-103, installed, certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Some cases of interference between the hydraulic pipe, P/N 109-
0761-65-103, and the tail rotor control rod assembly have been
detected on Model A109E helicopters.
    The interference, if not corrected, could damage the hydraulic
pipes and lead to the loss of the hydraulic system No. 1 in flight.
This AD * * * is issued to extend the same mandatory corrective
actions to A119 model due to its design similarity with A109E.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless
accomplished previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
100 hours TIS:
    (1) Inspect for interference between the hydraulic lines, P/N
109-0761-64-103 and P/N 109-0761-65-103, and the tail rotor control
rod assembly, P/N 109-0032-01-41, in accordance with the Compliance
Instructions, Part I, paragraph 3, of Agusta Bollettino Tecnico (BT)
No. 109EP-73, dated December 4, 2006 (BT A109E), which is applicable
to Model A109E helicopters, or BT 119-22, dated July 11, 2007 (BT
119-22), which is applicable to Model A119 helicopters.
    (2) If you find interference between the hydraulic lines and the
tail rotor control rod assembly, replace the hydraulic lines, P/N
109-0761-64-103 and P/N 109-0761-65-103, with hydraulic lines, P/N
109-0763-96-101 and P/N 109-0763-97-101, respectively, in accordance
with the Compliance Instructions, Part II of BT A109E or BT 119-22,
whichever is applicable to your model helicopter.
    (f) Within 180 days, replace hydraulic lines, P/N 109-0761-64-
103 and P/N 109-0761-65-103, with hydraulic lines, P/N 109-0763-96-
101 and P/N 109-0763-97-101, respectively, in accordance with the
Compliance Instructions, Part II, of BT A109E or BT 119-22,
whichever is applicable to your model helicopter.

Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

    (g) This AD requires replacement of hydraulic lines, P/N 109-
0761-64-103 and P/N 109-0761-65-103, within 180 days, unless
previously accomplished, instead of replacing the hydraulic lines on
the dates specified in the MCAI.

Subject

    (h) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 2910--Main
Hydraulic System.

Other Information

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance
Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(817) 222-5961.
    (2) Airworthy Product: Use only FAA-approved corrective actions.
Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved
by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the
State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the
United States. You are required to assure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

has approved the information collection requirements and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (j) MCAI EASA AD No 2007-0231, dated August 23, 2007 contains
related information.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 10, 2008.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-5495 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48846-48847]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16016]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751; FRL-11138-01-OCSPP]

Pesticide Registration Review; Decisions and Case Closures for
Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim or
final registration review decisions for the following chemicals:
dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, plant extract 620, polymeric betaine,
sodium fluoroacetate, and undecylenic acid. In addition, this notice
announces the closure of the registration review case for chlorpyrifos-
methyl, because the last U.S. registrations for this pesticide have
been canceled.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager

for the pesticide of interest identified in Table 1 in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-0701; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed interim or final decisions for all pesticides
listed in Table 1 in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring
that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and
other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the
environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in Table 1 in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's interim or final registration review decisions for the
pesticides shown in Table 1. The registration review decisions are
supported by rationales included in the docket established for each
chemical.

                      Table 1--Registration Review Interim and Final Decisions Being Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager
 Registration review case name and No.                   Docket ID No.                  and contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate; Case      EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0550........................  Bob Little,
 Number 4095.                                                                           [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Plant Extract 620; Case Number 6071....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0587........................  Joseph Mabon,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Polymeric betaine; Case Number 5116....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0374........................  Erin Dandridge,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Sodium Fluoroacetate; Case Number 3073.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0753........................  Natalie Bray,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Undecylenic Acid; Case Number 4095.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0549........................  Bob Little,
                                                                                [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed decisions and proposed interim registration review
decisions for the chemicals in the table above were posted to the
docket and the public was invited to submit any comments or new
information. EPA addressed the comments or information received during
the 60-day comment period for the proposed interim decisions in the
discussion for each pesticide listed in the table. Comments from the
60-day comment period that were received may or may not have affected
the Agency's interim or final decision. Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c),
the registration review case docket for the chemicals listed in the
Table will remain open until all actions required in the decision have
been completed.
    This document also announces the closure of the registration review
case for chlorpyrifos-methyl (Case Number 8011, Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2010-0119) because the last U.S. registrations for these
pesticides have been canceled.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 18, 2023.
Mary Elissa Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-16016 Filed 7-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47734-47736]
[DOCID:fr09au10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0778; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-034-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Model
PIAGGIO P-180 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Some cases of corrosion were detected in the interface between
the elevator hinges fittings (metallic) and the horizontal
stabilizer (carbon fibre); investigation identified the cause in
galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials.
    If left uncorrected, this situation could lead to a structural
failure of the elevator, which could result in possible loss of
control of the aeroplane.

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

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 23,
2010.

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<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-2010-0778;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-034-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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2010-0124 (Correction: June 22, 2010), dated June 22, 2010,
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products The MCAI states:

    Some cases of corrosion were detected in the interface between
the elevator hinges fittings (metallic) and the horizontal
stabilizer (carbon fibre); investigation identified the cause in
galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials.
    If left uncorrected, this situation could lead to a structural
failure of the elevator, which could result in possible loss of
control of the aeroplane.
    This AD requires:
    (1) Inspection of the hinges fittings for corrosion and of the
stabilizer for delamination;
    (2) Repair of the stabilizer, if necessary;
    (3) Replacement of the fittings, if corroded;
    (4) Improvement of fittings installation;
    (5) Installation of aluminum strips in the stabilizer to improve
bonding, in accordance with Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) Service
Bulletin (SB) 80-0262 Revision 2.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. has issued Service Bulletin
(MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262, Revision 2, dated March 17, 2010. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making

these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the
information provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 96 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $73,440, or $765 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 32 work-hours and require parts costing $11,000, for a cost
of $13,720 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0778;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-034-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 23, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model PIAGGIO P-180 airplanes, serial
numbers 1002 and 1004 through 1191, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55:
Stabilizers.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Some cases of corrosion were detected in the interface between
the elevator hinges fittings (metallic) and the horizontal
stabilizer (carbon fibre); investigation identified the cause in
galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials.
    If left uncorrected, this situation could lead to a structural
failure of the elevator, which could result in possible loss of
control of the aeroplane.

    This AD requires:

    (1) Inspection of the hinges fittings for corrosion and of the
stabilizer for delamination;
    (2) repair of the stabilizer, if necessary;
    (3) replacement of the fittings, if corroded;
    (4) improvement of fittings installation;
    (5) installation of aluminum strips in the stabilizer to improve
bonding, in accordance with Piaggio Aero Industries (PAI) Service
Bulletin (SB) 80-0262 Revision 2.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 1,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within 4 years after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the following:
    (i) Remove the left-hand (LH) and the right-hand (RH) elevators
and do all of the inspections and corrective actions following the
Accomplishment Instructions in Parts A, B, C, D, and E of PIAGGIO
AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletin (MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262,
Revision 2, dated March 17, 2010.
    (ii) Reinstall the LH and RH elevators and do the final checks
following the Accomplishment Instructions, Part F, of PIAGGIO AERO
INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletin (MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262
Revision 2, dated March 17, 2010.
    (2) We will allow ``unless already done'' credit for inspections
and corrective actions already done, before the effective date of
this AD, following PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A. Service Bulletins
(MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262, original issue dated September 24, 2009;
or Revision 1 dated December 23, 2009, for compliance with the
requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection requirements and has
assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2010-0124 (Correction: June 22,
2010), dated June 22, 2010; and PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A.
Service Bulletin (MANDATORY) N.: SB-80-0262, Revision 2, dated March
17, 2010, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 2, 2010.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19551 Filed 8-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P