[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25785-25788]
[DOCID:fr10my10-12]

========================================================================
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.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0474; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
4101 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 that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: During ground maneuvering,
prolonged operation with either engine in the restricted range between
82% and 90% RPM [revolutions per minute] will result in damage [e.g.,
cracking of the blade or hub] to the propeller assembly that could
eventually result in the release of a propeller blade. EASA AD 2007-
0268 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2008-13-02] was issued to require the
installation of a Propeller Warning Placard and implementation of a
corresponding Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) limitation instructing the
flight crew to taxi with the condition lever at FLIGHT in order to
minimise the time spent by the engines in the restricted range. BAE
Systems has now developed a Propeller Speed Warning System.
    A released propeller blade could result in engine failure and loss
of control of the airplane. 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 June 24, 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 BAE
Systems Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, Virginia
20171; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/
index.htm. 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; 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-2010-0474;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-056-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

    On June 10, 2008, we issued AD 2008-13-02, Amendment 39-15565 (73
FR 34847, June 19, 2008). That AD requires actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2008-13-02, inadvertent high revolutions per
minute (RPM) taxiing operations have been reported to have caused
stress to the propeller blades, which can result in dangerous blade
cracks. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0038, dated February 18, 2009
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During ground manoeuvring, prolonged operation with either
engine in the restricted range between 82% and 90% RPM [revolutions
per minute] will result in damage [e.g., cracking of the blade or
hub] to the propeller assembly that could eventually result in the
release of a propeller blade.
    To correct this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2007-0268 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2008-13-02] was issued to require the
installation of a Propeller Warning Placard and implementation of a
corresponding

Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) limitation, instructing the flight crew
to taxi with the condition lever at FLIGHT in order to minimize the
time spent by the engines in the restricted range. BAE Systems has
now developed a Propeller Speed Warning System, embodiment of which
will allow taxiing with the condition lever at TAXI, through the
introduction of a revised Flight Manual Limitation.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2007-0268, which is superseded, and requires
the installation of a Propeller Speed Warning System.

A released propeller blade could result in engine failure and loss of
control of the airplane. You may obtain further information by
examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Aircraft Change
Information Bulletin J41-61-014, Section 2, Issue 7, dated August 17,
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 3 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2008-13-02 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $25 per product.
Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required
actions is $195 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 20 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,800
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these costs. 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 $14,085, or $4,695 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 removing Amendment 39-15565 (73 FR
34847, June 19, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2010-0474;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-056-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 24, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) The proposed AD supersedes AD 2008-13-02, Amendment 39-
15565.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model 4101 airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 61:
Propellers/Propulsors.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During ground maneuvreing, prolonged operation with either
engine in the restricted range between 82% and 90% RPM [revolutions
per minute] will result in damage [e.g., cracking of the blade or
hub] to the propeller assembly that could eventually result in the
release of a propeller blade.
    To correct this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2007-0268 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2008-13-02] was issued to require the
installation of a Propeller Warning Placard

and implementation of a corresponding Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM)
limitation, instructing the flight crew to taxi with the condition
lever at FLIGHT in order to minimize the time spent by the engines
in the restricted range. BAE Systems has now developed a Propeller
Speed Warning System, embodiment of which will allow taxiing with
the condition lever at TAXI, through the introduction of a revised
Flight Manual Limitation.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2007-0268, which is superseded, and requires
the installation of a Propeller Speed Warning System.

A released propeller blade could result in engine failure and loss
of control of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Restatement of Requirements of AD-2008-13-02 With New Requirements

Actions

    (g) Within 90 days after July 24, 2008 (the effective date of AD
2008-13-02), unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Replace the existing Propeller Limitations Placard in the
cockpit with a new placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin
J41-11-027, dated March 29, 2007.
    (2) Revise the BAE Jetstream Series 4100 Flight Manual (FM) to
include the information in BAE Jetstream Series 4100 General
Amendment G12, approved January 2007; and BAE Jetstream Series 4100
Advance Amendment Bulletin 13, approved April 4, 2007. General
Amendment G12 describes a rolling take-off technique and the reduced
possibility of landing with ice contaminating the wings, and adds a
Gross Height/Pressure Altitude Conversion Chart. Advance Amendment
Bulletin 13 introduces procedures for placing the propeller
condition levers in the Flight position during all ground
maneuvering. Operate the airplane according to the procedures in
General Amendment G12 and Advance Amendment Bulletin 13.

    Note 1:  This may be done by inserting copies of General
Amendment G12 and Advance Amendment Bulletin 13 into the FM. When
General Amendment G12 and Advance Amendment Bulletin 13 have been
included in general revisions of the FM, the general revisions may
be inserted in the FM, provided the relevant information in the
general revision is identical to that in General Amendment G12 and
Advance Amendment Bulletin 13.

New Requirements of This AD

Actions

    (h) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, install
a Propeller Speed Warning System (modification JM41674), in
accordance with Section 2 of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Aircraft Change Information Bulletin J41-61-014, Issue 7, dated
August 17, 2009. Before further flight after modification, do the
actions required in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Remove the placard that was installed as required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) Remove BAE Jetstream Series 4100 Advance Amendment Bulletin
13, approved April 4, 2007, from the FM.
    (2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the BAE Jetstream Series 4100 FM using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.

    Note 2:  Guidance on revising the BAE Jetstream Series 4100 FM,
as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, can be found in BAE
Jetstream Series 4100 Particular Amendment 111, approved July 27,
2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 3:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0038, dated February 18, 2009; and the
service information identified in Table 1 of this AD; for related
information.

                      Table 1--Service Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Service information                         Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAE Jetstream Series 4100 Advance Amendment       April 4, 2007.
 Bulletin 13 to the Jetstream Series 4100 Flight
 Manual.
BAE Jetstream Series 4100 General Amendment G12   January 2007.
 to the Jetstream Series 4100 Flight Manual.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Aircraft Change  August 17, 2009.
 Information Bulletin J41-61-014, Section 2,
 Issue 7.
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service          March 29, 2007.
 Bulletin J41-11-027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-10996 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43233-43236]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0904; Special Conditions No. 25-542-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 Series Airplane;
Electronic Flight-Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal
Stability, and Low-Energy Awareness

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
series airplanes. These airplanes will

have a novel or unusual design feature associated with lateral-
directional and longitudinal stability, and low-energy awareness. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: August 25, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (425) 227-
1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested, and the
FAA approved, an extension to the application for FAA type
certification to November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 series airplane
has a conventional layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB
engines. It features a twin-aisle, 9-abreast, economy-class layout, and
accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 airplane configuration
accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum take-off weight of
602,000 lbs.

Lateral-Directional Static Stability

    The electronic flight-control system (EFCS) on the A350 airplane,
like its predecessors the A320, A330, A340, and A380 airplanes,
contains fly-by-wire control laws that can result in neutral lateral-
directional static stability; therefore, the conventional requirements
in the regulations are not met.
    Positive static directional stability is defined as the tendency to
recover from a skid with the rudder free. Positive static lateral
stability is defined as the tendency to raise the low wing in a
sideslip with the aileron controls free. These control criteria are
intended to accomplish the following:
    1. Provide additional cues of inadvertent sideslips and skids
through control-force changes.
    2. Ensure that short periods of unattended operation do not result
in any significant changes in yaw or bank angle.
    3. Provide predictable roll and yaw response.
    4. Provide an acceptable level of pilot attention (workload) to
attain and maintain a coordinated turn.
    The Flight Test Harmonization Working Group has recommended a rule
and advisory-material change for Sec.  25.177, static lateral-
directional stability. This harmonized text will form the basis for
these special conditions.

Longitudinal Static Stability

    Static longitudinal stability on airplanes with mechanical links to
the pitch-control surface means that a pull force on the controller
will result in a reduction in speed relative to the trim speed, and a
push force will result in a higher speed than the trim speed.
Longitudinal stability is required by the regulations for the following
reasons:
    1. Speed-change cues are provided to the pilot through increased
and decreased forces on the controller.
    2. Short periods of unattended control of the airplane do not
result in significant changes in attitude, airspeed, or load factor.
    3. A predictable pitch response is provided to the pilot.
    4. An acceptable level of pilot attention (workload) to attain and
maintain trim speed and altitude is provided to the pilot.
    5. Longitudinal stability provides gust stability.
    The pitch-control movement of the sidestick on the A350 airplane is
designed to be a normal load factor or ``g'' command that results in an
initial movement of the elevator surface to attain the commanded load
factor, which is then followed by integrated movement of the stabilizer
and elevator to automatically trim the airplane to a neutral, 1g,
stick-free stability. The flight path commanded by the initial
sidestick input will remain stick-free until the pilot provides another
command. This control function is applied during ``normal'' control law
within the speed range from initiation of the angle-of-attack
protection limit, V[alpha]prot, to VMO/
MMO. Once outside this speed range, the control laws
introduce the conventional longitudinal static stability as described
above.
    As a result of neutral static stability, the A350 airplane does not
meet the requirements of 14 CFR part 25 for static longitudinal
stability.

Low Energy Awareness

    Past experience on airplanes fitted with a flight-control system
providing neutral longitudinal stability shows insufficient feedback
cues to the pilot of excursion below normal operational speeds. The
maximum-angle-of-attack protection system limits the airplane angle of
attack and prevents stall during normal operating speeds, but this
system is not sufficient to prevent stall at low-speed excursions below
normal operational speeds. Until intervention, the pilot has no
stability cues because the aircraft remains trimmed. Additionally,
feedback from the pitching moment, due to thrust variation, is reduced
by the flight-control laws. Recovery from a low-speed excursion may
become hazardous when the low-speed situation is associated with a low
altitude, and with the engines at low thrust or with performance-
limiting conditions.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus
must show that the Model A350-900 series airplane meets the applicable
provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-
129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model A350-900 series airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 series airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue
a finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design features: A flight-control design
feature within the normal operational envelope in which sidestick
deflection in the roll axis commands roll rate; an operational

design that does not comply with the static longitudinal stability
requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.171, 25.173, and 25.175; and a low-energy
state where recovery may become hazardous when associated with both a
low altitude and performance-limiting conditions.

Discussion

    In the absence of positive lateral stability, the curve of lateral
control-surface deflections against sideslip angle should be in a
conventional sense, and reasonably in harmony with rudder deflection
during steady-heading sideslip maneuvers.
    Since conventional relationships between stick forces and control-
surface displacements do not apply to the ``load-factor command''
flight-control system on the A350 airplane, longitudinal stability
characteristics should be evaluated by assessing the airplane's
handling qualities during simulator and flight-test maneuvers
appropriate to operation of the airplane. Airbus may accomplish this by
using the Handling Qualities Rating Method presented in Appendix 5 of
the Flight Test Guide, AC 25-7C, or an acceptable alternative method.
Important considerations are as follows:
    a. Adequate speed control without excessive pilot workload,
    b. Acceptable high- and low-speed protection, and
    c. Provision for adequate cues to the pilot of significant speed
excursions beyond VMO/MMO, and low-speed-
awareness flight conditions.
    The airplane should provide adequate awareness cues to the pilot of
a low-energy (low speed/low thrust/low height) state to ensure that the
airplane retains sufficient energy to recover when flight-control laws
provide neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal
operating speeds. This may be accomplished as follows:
    a. Adequate low-speed/low-thrust cues at low altitude may be
provided by a strong, positive, static, stability force gradient (1
pound per 6 knots applied through the sidestick), or
    b. The low-energy awareness may be provided by an appropriate
warning with the following characteristics:
    i. It should be unique, unambiguous, and unmistakable.
    ii. It should be active at appropriate altitudes and in appropriate
configurations (i.e., at low altitude, in the approach and landing
configurations).
    iii. It should be sufficiently timely to allow recovery to a
stabilized flight condition inside the normal flight envelope, while
maintaining the desired flight path and without entering the flight
controls angle-of-attack protection mode.
    iv. It should not be triggered during normal operation, including
operation in moderate turbulence for recommended maneuvers at
recommended speeds.
    v. It should not be cancelable by the pilot other than by achieving
a higher-energy state.
    vi. There should be an adequate hierarchy among the various
warnings so that the pilot is not confused and led to take
inappropriate recovery action if multiple warnings occur.
    Global energy awareness and non-nuisance of low-energy cues should
be evaluated by simulator and flight tests in the whole take-off and
landing altitude range for which certification is requested. This would
include all relevant combinations of weight, center-of-gravity
position, configuration, airbrakes position, and available thrust,
including reduced and de-rated take-off thrust operations and engine-
failure cases. A sufficient number of tests should be conducted,
allowing the level of energy awareness and the effects of energy-
management errors to be assessed.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-13-14-SC for Airbus
Model A350-900 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register
on January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2384). No comments were received, and the
special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Airbus Model
A350-900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to
the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to
that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of
general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Airbus Model A350-900 series
airplanes.
    (1) Electronic Flight-Control System: Lateral-Directional and
Longitudinal Stability, and Low-Energy Awareness. In lieu of the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.171, 25.173, 25.175 and 25.177, the
following special conditions apply:
    (a) The airplane must be shown to have suitable static lateral,
directional, and longitudinal stability in any condition normally
encountered in service, including the effects of atmospheric
disturbance. The showing of suitable static lateral, directional, and
longitudinal stability must be based on the airplane handling
qualities, including pilot workload and pilot compensation, for
specific test procedures during the flight-test evaluations.
    (b) The airplane must provide adequate awareness to the pilot of a
low-energy (low speed/low thrust/low height) state when fitted with
flight-control laws presenting neutral longitudinal stability
significantly below the normal operating speeds. ``Adequate awareness''
means warning information must be provided to alert the crew of unsafe
operating conditions and to enable them to take appropriate corrective
action.
    (c) The static directional stability (as shown by the tendency to
recover from a skid with the rudder free) must be positive for any
landing gear and flap position, and symmetrical power condition, at
speeds from 1.13 VSR1, up to VFE, VLE,
or VFC/MFC (as appropriate).
    (d) The static lateral stability (as shown by the tendency to raise
the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free) for any
landing gear and wing-flap position, and symmetric power condition, may
not be negative at any airspeed (except that speeds higher than
VFE need not be considered for wing-flaps-extended
configurations, nor speeds higher than VLE for landing-gear-
extended configurations) in the following airspeed ranges:
    (i) From 1.13 VSR1 to VMO/MMO.
    (ii) From VMO/MMO to VFC/
MFC, unless the divergence is -
    (1) Gradual;
    (2) Easily recognizable by the pilot; and
    (3) Easily controllable by the pilot.

    (e) In straight, steady sideslips over the range of sideslip angles
appropriate to the operation of the airplane, but not less than those
obtained with one-half of the available rudder-control movement (but
not exceeding a rudder-control force of 180 pounds), rudder-control
movements and forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of
sideslip in a stable sense; and the factor of proportionality must lie
between limits found necessary for safe operation. This requirement
must be met for the configurations and speeds specified in paragraph
(c) of this section.
    (f) For sideslip angles greater than those prescribed by paragraph
(e) of this section, up to the angle at which full rudder control is
used or a rudder-control force of 180 pounds is obtained, the rudder-
control forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must be
needed for increased angles of sideslip. Compliance with this
requirement must be shown using straight, steady sideslips, unless full
lateral-control input is achieved before reaching either full rudder-
control input or a rudder-control force of 180 pounds; a straight,
steady sideslip need not be maintained after achieving full lateral-
control input.
    This requirement must be met at all approved landing-gear and wing-
flap positions for the range of operating speeds and power conditions
appropriate to each landing-gear and wing-flap position with all
engines operating.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 9, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17575 Filed 7-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79239-79242]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32603]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65979; File No. SR-C2-2011-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Order Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Concerning Industry Directors and the
Nomination of Representative Directors

December 15, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On October 21, 2011, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its Bylaws concerning
Industry Directors and the nomination of Representative Directors and
to make conforming changes to the C2 Certificate of Incorporation and
the Voting Agreement between C2 and CBOE Holdings, Inc. (``CBOE
Holdings''). On November 1, 2011, the Exchange submitted a technical
amendment (``Amendment No. 1'') to the proposed rule change.\3\

On November 9, 2011, the proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposed rule change. This order grants approval to the rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ As provided in the instructions to Form 19b-4, the Exchange
noted in Item 2 of its filing that it needed to obtain, but had not
yet obtained, formal approval from its Board of Directors for the
Bylaw, Certificate of Incorporation, and Voting Agreement changes
set forth in this proposed rule change. The Exchange also noted that
it needed to obtain, but had not yet obtained, approval from CBOE
Holdings, the Exchange's sole stockholder, of the changes to the
Certificate of Incorporation and Voting Agreement. The Exchange
stated that once these approvals were obtained, it would file a
technical amendment to this proposed rule change to reflect these
approvals. Amendment No. 1 reflected that the requisite approvals
were obtained on November 1, 2011, and represented that no further
action in connection with this proposed rule change was required. In
addition, Amendment No. 1 contained the Exchange's consent to an
extension of time for Commission consideration of this proposed rule
change for an additional thirty-five days after November 1, 2011
(the filing date of this amendment).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65681 (November 3,
2011), 76 FR 69783 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Elimination of 30% Industry Director Requirement

    Currently, the Exchange's Bylaws contain a requirement that its
Board of Directors be composed of at least 30% Industry Directors.\5\
The Exchange proposed to amend its Bylaws to eliminate this
requirement. In its Notice, the Exchange said that this change was
intended to give it flexibility as it evaluates the composition of its
Board in the future.\6\ C2 also proposed a conforming change to amend
Section 4.4 of its Bylaws to delete the clause that requires the
Nominating and Governance Committee (``NGC'') to consist of both
Industry and Non-Industry Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 3.1 of the Exchange's Bylaws. The term
``Industry Directors'' is defined in this Section.
    \6\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 69784.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Nomination of Representative Directors

    Currently, the Exchange Bylaws state that at least 20% of C2's
directors must be Representative Directors.\7\ As described in Section
3.2 of the Bylaws, candidates for Representative Director positions are
nominated by the Industry Director Subcommittee of the NGC.\8\ In
addition, C2 Trading Permit Holders may nominate alternative candidates
(in addition to those nominated by the Industry Director Subcommittee)
for election to the Representative Director positions via a petition
process. In such case, a run-off election is held, in which C2's
Trading Permit Holders vote to determine which candidates will be
elected to the C2 Board of Directors to serve as Representative
Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section 3.1 of Exchange Bylaws. The term
``Representative Directors'' is defined in Section 3.2 of the
Exchange Bylaws.
    \8\ The Industry Director Subcommittee is composed of all of the
Industry Directors serving on the NGC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Exchange Bylaws will continue to require that at
least 20% of C2's directors must be Representative Directors. However,
the Exchange proposed to amend its Bylaws to revise the nomination
process for the Representative Directors. First, the Exchange proposed
to eliminate the requirement in Section 3.2 that the Representative
Directors must be Industry Directors to reflect the fact that the other
change it proposed with respect to Industry Directors could result in
the Board potentially not having Industry Directors. Second, the
Exchange proposed to incorporate into the Bylaws the concept of a
Representative Director Nominating Body (``RDNB'').\9\ Under proposed
Section 1.1(k), RDNB would mean the current Industry Director
Subcommittee of the NGC if there are at least two Industry Directors on
the Exchange's NGC and would mean the Trading Permit Holders
Subcommittee of the Advisory Board if the NGC has fewer than two
Industry Directors. The RDNB would nominate the Representative
Directors in accordance with the current provisions of proposed Section
3.2 of the Bylaws, and therefore would perform the functions currently
performed by the Industry Director Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed new Bylaws definition 1.1(k) and the proposed
changes to Sections 4.4 and 6.1 of the Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, C2 proposed to amend Section 3.2 of the Bylaws with
regard to the time period by which the Representative Director nominees
are announced via circular to the Trading Permit Holders, as well as
the deadline for Trading Permit Holders to nominate alternative
candidates via petition, and the timing of any run-off election. C2
proposed to amend these deadlines in order to provide it with
additional flexibility to complete the process for determining nominees
at an earlier point in time. The Exchange did not propose to change the
timeframes between the milestones in the process. In addition, C2
intends the new timelines to allow it to synchronize the Exchange's
nomination process to that of CBOE Holdings.
    The NGC will continue to be bound to accept and nominate the
Representative Director nominees recommended by the RDNB, provided that
the Representative Director nominees are not opposed by a petition
candidate. If such Representative Director nominees are opposed by a
petition candidate, then the Nominating and Governance Committee shall
be bound to accept and nominate the Representative Director nominees
who receive the most votes pursuant to a run-off election.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Section 3.1 of the Exchange Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Amendments Relating to the Advisory Board

    Currently, Section 6.1 of the Exchange Bylaws provides that the
Board may establish an Advisory Board which shall advise the Office of
the Chairman regarding matters of interest to Trading Permit Holders.
The Exchange proposed to amend Section 6.1 of the Bylaws to provide
that the Exchange ``will'' (as opposed to ``may'') have an Advisory
Board, which shall advise the Board of Directors in addition to the
Office of the Chairman regarding matters that impact Trading Permit
Holders. C2 also proposed to amend Section 6.1 of its Bylaws to
expressly provide that at least two members of the Advisory Board shall
be Trading Permit Holders or persons associated with Trading Permit
Holders.

(d) Amendment To Certificate of Incorporation and Voting Agreement

    Finally, C2 proposed to make conforming changes to its Certificate
of Incorporation and the Voting Agreement between it and its parent
company, CBOE Holdings, to replace the references to the Industry
Director Subcommittee with the new term Representative Director
Nominating Body. It also proposed to make non-substantive changes to
the Voting Agreement.

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with: (1) Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\12\
which requires a national securities exchange to be so organized and
have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and to enforce
compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with
the provisions of the Act; (2) Section 6(b)(3) of the Act,\13\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange assure the
fair representation of its members in the selection of its directors
and administration of its affairs, and provide that one or more
directors shall be representative of issuers and investors and not be
associated with a member of the exchange, broker, or dealer (the ``fair

representation requirement''); and (3) Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\
in that it is designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices; to promote just and equitable
principles of trade; to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system; and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Elimination of 30% Industry Director Requirement and Fair
Representation

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to eliminate
the requirement that its Board of Directors be composed of at least 30%
Industry Directors is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\15\
including Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.\16\ Even if the Exchange's Board
might not someday include directors who technically qualify as Industry
Directors, or the number of such directors is otherwise reduced below
current levels,\17\ the Exchange's proposal would not impact its
current process to ensure fair representation of its Trading Permit
Holders in the selection of its directors and administration of its
affairs as required by Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.\18\ Specifically, at
all times, at least 20% of the directors serving on the Board will be
Representative Directors nominated (or otherwise selected through the
petition process) with the input of Trading Permit Holders (or persons
associated with Trading Permit Holders) as provided in the proposed
Section 3.2 of the Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). This Section requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange assure the fair representation of
its members in the selection of its directors and administration of
its affairs, and provide that one or more directors shall be
representative of issuers and investors and not be associated with a
member of the exchange, broker, or dealer.
    \17\ In the Notice, the Exchange stated that it has not made a
determination as to whether it will reduce (or eliminate) the number
of directors on its Board who qualify as an Industry Director and
that it recognizes the importance of having directors who have
industry expertise and knowledge (whether those directors are
Industry Directors or Non-Industry Directors). See Notice, supra
note 4, at 69784.
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has previously approved proposals in which an
exchange's board of directors was composed of all or nearly all non-
industry directors where the process was nevertheless designed to
comply with the ``fair representation'' requirement in the selection
and election of directors.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48946
(December 17, 2003), 68 FR 74678 (December 24, 2003) (approving SR-
NYSE-2003-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Nomination of Representative Directors and Fair Representation

    As proposed, the Exchange Bylaws will continue to require that at
least 20% of C2's directors must be Representative Directors. However,
in light of the changes that the Exchange proposed to the composition
of the Board, the Exchange revised the nomination process for the
Representative Directors. First, the Exchange proposed to incorporate
into the Bylaws the concept of a RDNB,\20\ which would mean the current
Industry Director Subcommittee of the NGC if there are at least two
Industry Directors on the Exchange's NGC or the Trading Permit Holders
Subcommittee of the Advisory Board if the NGC has less than two
Industry Directors. Second, the Exchange proposed to eliminate the
requirement in Section 3.2 that the Representative Directors must be
Industry Directors.\21\ In addition, C2 proposed to amend Section 3.2
of the Bylaws with regard to the time period by which the
Representative Director nominees are announced via circular to the
Trading Permit Holders, as well as the deadline for Trading Permit
Holders to nominate alternative candidates via petition, and the timing
of any run-off election.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 9 and accompanying text.
    \21\ In the Notice, the Exchange explained that it proposed this
change because it is possible that at some point in the future C2's
Board may not have Industry Directors serving on it. See Notice,
supra note 4, at 69784.
    \22\ In the Notice, the Exchange explained that it proposed this
change because it would provide the Exchange, the NGC, and the RDNB
with additional flexibility and enable the exchange to complete the
process for determining its nominees for Representative Director
positions at an earlier point in time without changing the time
period, as well as synchronize C2's nomination process with the
nomination process of its parent company, CBOE Holdings. See Notice,
supra note 4, at 69785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposed changes to the
nomination process for the Representative Directors are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\23\ including Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.\24\
As discussed above, currently the Exchange satisfies the fair
representation requirement by having on its Board at least 20%
Representative Directors. As a result of the proposed changes to the
composition of the Board, the NGC could have fewer than two Industry
Directors, in which case the Industry Director Subcommittee would not
be formed.\25\ Under this scenario, the RDNB would be the Trading
Permit Holders Subcommittee of the Advisory Board (consisting of at
least two members who are Trading Permit Holders (or persons associated
with Trading Permit Holders)) \26\ and would provide a mechanism for
Trading Permit Holders to have input with respect to the nominees for
Representative Directors. Pursuant to Bylaws Section 6.1, members of
the Advisory Board are recommended by the NGC for approval by the
Board. The proposed change leaves intact the current process to
nominate and elect Representative Directors, but is intended to
accommodate the need for member input in the nomination of
Representative Director candidates in the event that the Board does not
contain a sufficient number of Industry Directors to empanel the
Industry Director Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3). This Section requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange assure the fair representation of
its members in the selection of its directors and administration of
its affairs, and provide that one or more directors shall be
representative of issuers and investors and not be associated with a
member of the exchange, broker, or dealer.
    \25\ See Section 4.4 of the Exchange Bylaws.
    \26\ See infra note 29 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, with respect to the proposed changes to the time period by
which the Representative Director nominees are announced via circular
to the Trading Permit Holders, as well as the deadline for Trading
Permit Holders to nominate alternative candidates via petition, and the
timing of any run-off election, the Commission believes that such
changes generally preserve the current schedule with respect to the
various milestones in the process, while allowing the Exchange to shift
slightly the start of the process. Further, the Commission notes that
the proposed provision specifically provides that ``[i]n no event shall
the annual meeting date each year be prior to the completion of the
process for the nomination of the Representative Directors for that
annual meeting as set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Section 2.2 of the Exchange Bylaws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Amendments Relating to the Advisory Board and Fair Representation

    As stated above, the Exchange proposed to amend Section 6.1 of the
Bylaws to provide that the Exchange ``will'' (as opposed to ``may'')
have an Advisory Board, which shall advise the Board of Directors in
addition to the Office of the Chairman regarding matters that impact
Trading Permit

Holders.\28\ C2 also proposed to amend Section 6.1 of its Bylaws to
expressly provide that at least two members of the Advisory Board shall
be Trading Permit Holders or persons associated with Trading Permit
Holders.\29\ By providing for the mandatory establishment of the
Advisory Board and for the mandatory inclusion of at least two Trading
Permit Holders or persons associated with Trading Permit Holders in the
Advisory Board, the Exchange's proposal is designed to facilitate the
provision of input by industry members and Trading Permit Holders into
the selection of its directors and administration of its affairs,
consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In the Notice, the Exchange explained that it recently
established an Advisory Board. See Notice, supra note 4, at 69784.
    \29\ In the Notice, the Exchange noted that the Advisory Board
provides a mechanism for Trading Permit Holders to provide industry
feedback to C2's Chairman and CEO, Executive Vice Chairman,
President and Lead Director, all of whom are members of the Advisory
Board, consistent with Section 6(b)(3) of the Act. See Notice, supra
note 4, at 69784.
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-C2-2011-031), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32603 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 122)]
[Notices]
[Page 36472-36473]
[DOCID:fr25jn10-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0080; Notice 1]

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, (Goodyear),\1\ has determined
that approximately 14,826 passenger car tires manufactured between
August of 2007 and May of 2009, do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Goodyear has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), a replacement
equipment manufacturer, is incorporated in the state of Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Goodyear has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Goodyear's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 14,826 sizes P195/55R15 84V and P225/
60R16 97H Goodyear brand Arizonian Silver Edition Plus model passenger
car tires manufactured between August of 2007 and May of 2009 at
Goodyear's plant located in Otrokovice, Czech Republic.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the 14,826 \2\ tires that have already passed from the
manufacturer to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Goodyear's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Goodyear as a replacement
equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 14,826 of the affected
tires. However, the agency cannot relieve Goodyear distributors of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant tires under their control after Goodyear recognized
that the subject noncompliance existed. Those tires must be brought
into conformance, exported, or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * *
*
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different * * *

    Goodyear explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
labeling error, the sidewall marking on the reference side of the tires
incorrectly describes the actual number of plies in the tread area of
the tires as required by paragraph S5.5(f). Specifically, the tires in
question were inadvertently manufactured with ``Tread Plies: 2
Polyester + 2 steel.'' The labeling should have been ``Tread Plies: 2
Polyester + 1 polyamide + 2 steel.''
    Goodyear also explains that while the noncompliant tires are
mislabeled ``the tires meet or exceed all applicable Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards.''
    Goodyear reported that this noncompliance was brought to their
attention during an audit of sidewall labeling.
    Goodyear argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety because the noncompliant sidewall marking does not
create an unsafe condition and all other labeling requirements have
been met.
    Goodyear points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
    Goodyear additionally states that it has corrected the affected
tire molds and all future production will have the correct material
shown on the sidewall.
    In summation, Goodyear believes that the described noncompliance of
its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, and should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is
open on weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: July 26, 2010.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: June 21, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-15431 Filed 6-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16216-16217]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13734-001]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving
Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 13734-001.
    c. Date Filed: February 7, 2012.
    d. Submitted By: Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Hildebrand Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the existing Hildebrand Lock and Dam on the
Monongahela River, in Monongalia County, West Virginia. The project
would occupy United States lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark R. Stover, Lock+\TM\ Hydro
Friends Fund XLVI, c/o Hydro Green Energy, LLC, 900 Oakmont Lane, Suite
310, Westmont, IL 60559;<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 711; email_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on February 7, 2012. Lock+ Hydro Friends
Fund XLVI, LLC provided public notice of its request on February 3,
2012. In a letter dated March 14, 2012, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC's
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at
50 CFR, Part 402; and (b) the West Virginia State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund
XLVI, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying
out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI, LLC filed a Pre-Application
Document

(PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: March 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6648 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64089-64090]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-4187]

A New Era of Smarter Food Safety; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
extending the comment period for the notice of public meeting and
request for comments that appeared in the Federal Register of September
18, 2019. The notice announced a public meeting entitled ``A New Era of
Smarter Food Safety'' that was held on October 21, 2019. In the notice
of public meeting and request for comments, FDA requested comments on a
modern approach the Agency is taking to strengthen its protection of
the food supply to help shape an FDA blueprint for a new era of smarter
food safety. The Agency is taking this action in response to requests
for an extension to allow interested persons additional time to submit
comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the notice published
September 18, 2019 (84 FR 49111). Submit either electronic or written
comments by December 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before December 5, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of December 5, 2019. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-4187 for ``A New Era of Smarter Food Safety.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this

information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and
you must identify this information as ``confidential.'' Any information
marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance
with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more
information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80
FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Kelly, Office of Food Policy and
Response, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 18,
2019, FDA published a notice of public meeting and request for comments
with a 30-day comment period after the October 21, 2019, public meeting
to request comments on the new era of smarter food safety. Comments on
the new era of smarter food safety will shape an FDA blueprint for a
new era of smarter food safety.
    The Agency has received requests for an extension of the comment
period for ``A New Era of Smarter Food Safety; Public Meeting, Request
for Comments.'' Each request conveyed concern that the current 30-day
comment period following the October 21, 2019, public meeting does not
allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to
the September 18, 2019, notice.
    FDA has considered the requests and is extending the comment period
for ``A New Era of Smarter Food Safety; Public Meeting, Request for
Comments'' for 15 days, until December 5, 2019. The Agency believes
that a 15-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to
submit comments without significantly delaying action on these
important issues.

    Dated: November 14, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-25123 Filed 11-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27109-27112]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0419; Product Identifier 2019-CE-029-AD; Amendment
39-21118; AD 2020-09-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AERMACCHI S.p.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
AERMACCHI S.p.A. Models F.260, F.260B, F.260C, F.260D, F.260E, and
F.260F airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks on
the body of the flap actuators. The FAA is issuing this AD to require
actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 7, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 7, 2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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 AD, contact Leonardo
Aircraft, Piazza Monte Grappa n. 4, 00195 Rome, Italy; telephone: +39
06.324731; fax: +39.06.3208621; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or technicalassistance/adccc1ccedc1c8c2c3ccdfc9c2cec2c0ddccc3d483cec2c0; internet: www.leonardocompany.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0419.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0419; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2019-0119-E, dated May 29, 2019 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During maintenance, cracks were found on the body of several
flap actuators installed on F260 aeroplanes and held as spares.
Investigation is ongoing to determine the root cause of the
cracking.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the flap actuator, possibly resulting in reduced control
of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Leonardo, S.p.A.
issued the [alert service bulletin] ASB to provide inspection
instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
inspections of the affect parts, and, depending on findings,
replacement of an affected part with a serviceable part.
    This [EASA] AD is considered an interim measure and further AD
action may follow.

    The EASA AD refers to Leonardo Aircraft, formerly Aermacchi S.p.A.,
as the design approval holder (DAH). The FAA type certificate holder of
record for these models is AERMACCHI S.p.A. Therefore, this AD
specifies AERMACCHI S.p.A. as the type certificate holder. You may
examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0419.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin No.
260SB-166, dated May 27, 2019. The service information contains
procedures for inspecting the flap actuators, part numbers SF260-12-
215-01, SF260-12-215-101, and SF260-12-215-09, for cracks and damage
and taking necessary corrective action. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD
because it evaluated all information provided by the State of Design
Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. The MCAI requires an
initial fluorescent dye penetrant inspection within a short compliance
time and repetitive visual inspections thereafter every 100 hours time-
in-service (TIS). This AD requires the initial fluorescent dye
penetrant inspection. The FAA plans to issue a superseding Notice of
proposed rulemaking for the longer-term repetitive visual inspections
to provide the public an opportunity to comment. In addition, the
inspection reports required by this AD will provide Leonardo Aircraft
and the FAA better insight into the nature, cause, and extent of the
cracking. If final action is identified to address the unsafe
condition, the FAA may consider further rulemaking for this reason as
well.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
cracks in the flap actuator could cause the flap actuator to fail and
result in reduced control of the airplane. Therefore, the FAA finds
good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable. In addition, for the reason stated above, the FAA finds
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for
public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data,
views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0419;
Product Identifier 2019-CE-029-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 54 products of U.S.
registry. The FAA also estimates that it will take about 4 work-hours
per product to comply with the fluorescent dye penetrant inspection
requirement and 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting
requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of the initial
inspection and reporting requirement required in this AD on U.S.
operators to be $22,950, or $425 per product.
    In addition, the FAA estimates that any necessary follow-on actions
will take about 8 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a
cost of $5,680 per product. The FAA has no way of determining the
number of products that may need these actions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-09-04 Aermacchi S.p.A.: Amendment 39-21118; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0419; Product Identifier 2019-CE-029-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 7, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to AERMACCHI S.p.A. Models F.260, F.260B,
F.260C, F.260D, F.260E, and F.260F airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks on the
body of the flap actuators. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracks in the flap actuator, which could cause the flap
actuator to fail. Failure of the flap actuator could result in
reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Definition

    For purposes of this AD, a serviceable part is a flap actuator
part number (P/N) SF260-12-215-01, SF260-12-215-101, or SF260-12-
215-09 that has:
    (1) Accumulated less than 1,000 hours total time-in-service
(TIS); or
    (2) Passed the fluorescent dye penetrant inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(g) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (3) of this AD:
    (1) Within the compliance time listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or
(ii), whichever occurs later, do a fluorescent dye penetrant
inspection of the flap actuator, P/N SF260-12-215-01, P/N SF260-12-
215-101, or P/N SF260-12-215-09, for cracks and damage by following
Annex A of Leonardo Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin No. 260SB-166,
dated May 27, 2019 (Leonardo ASB 260SB-166). If there is a crack or
any damage, before further flight, remove the flap actuator from
service and replace it with a serviceable part.
    (i) Before the flap actuator accumulates 1,000 hours total TIS;
or
    (ii) Within 10 hours TIS after May 7, 2020 (the effective date
of this AD) or with 30 days after May 7, 2020 (the effective date of
this AD), whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 10 days after completing the inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, report the results of the inspection to
Leonardo Aircraft at the address listed in paragraph (k)(3) of this
AD. Include the following information in the report: Flap actuator
P/N, flap actuator serial number, hours TIS, batch number marks (if
present) stamped on the body, the airplane serial number or
registration (``N'') number, and a description of any cracks or
damage found.
    (3) As of May 7, 2020 (the effective date of this AD), do not
install any flap actuator P/N SF260-12-215-01, SF260-12-215-101, or
SF260-12-215-09 unless it is a serviceable part.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 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: Mike
Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4144; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<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.

(i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

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

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2019-0199-E, dated May 29, 2019, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0419.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Leonardo Aircraft Alert Service Bulletin No. 260SB-166,
dated May 27, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Leonardo Aircraft, Piazza Monte Grappa n. 4, 00195 Rome, Italy;

telephone: +39 06.324731; fax: +39.06.3208621; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
exception occurred on : 2020-09730.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-09730.htm
technicalassistance/[email protected]; internet:
www.leonardocompany.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0419.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 1, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09730 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34091-34092]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR13-24-000]

Enterprise Liquids Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 29, 2013, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) or the
Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedures, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(2)(2012), Enterprise Liquids Pipeline LLC filed a petition
seeking a declaratory order approving a proposed proration policy for
its new Aegis Pipeline project. The project is designed to provide
capacity

to transport purity ethane from Mont Belvieu, Texas to Napoleonville,
Louisiana, with various intermediate delivery points in Texas and
Louisiana.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in 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 FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 17, 2013.

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13400 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P