[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30652-30654]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10097]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0795; FRL-10217-03-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from solvent cleaning and degreasing operations. We are
approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective June 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0795. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On December 13, 2022 (87 FR 76171), the EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD............................            2.31  Solvent Cleaning and              07/14/2021        07/18/22
                                                     Degreasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation. On the same
day, we also made an interim final determination (87 FR 76107) that the
submittal from the California Air Resources Board on behalf of the
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District corrected the SIP
deficiency from a previous submittal, allowing us to defer the
imposition of sanctions resulting from our previous disapproval action
concerning the District's rule.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received four comments. Three of the submitted
comments were supportive of our assessment of the rule as described in
our proposed action. One comment was irrelevant and outside the scope
of this specific rulemaking action.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as

described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the
California SIP. The July 14, 2021 version of Rule 2.31 will replace the
previously approved version of this rule in the SIP.
    As a result of this action, the sanctions that were deferred in our
interim final determination are now rescinded, and a federal
implementation plan to resolve the deficiency is no longer required
under section 110(c) of the Act.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Yolo-
Solano AQMD, Rule 2.31, Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing, revised on
July 14, 2021, which regulates VOC emissions from solvent cleaning and
degreasing operations. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 7, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(503)(i)(D)(2) and
(c)(596) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (503) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *

    (2) Previously approved on July 30, 2021, in paragraph
(c)(503)(i)(D)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
(c)(596)(i)(A)(1), Rule 2.31, ``Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing,''
revised on April 12, 2017.
* * * * *
    (596) The following regulation was submitted on July 18, 2022, by
the Governor's designee, as an attachment to a letter dated July 11,
2022.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 2.31, ``Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing,'' revised on July
14, 2021.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-10097 Filed 5-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 52935]
[DOCID:fr30au10-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13729-000]

Energy Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

August 23, 2010.
    On May 11, 2010, and supplemented on July 20, 2010, Energy
Exchange, Inc. filed an application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the
Tacoma Water Supply Hydroelectric Project (Tacoma Project). The Tacoma
Project would be located within the city of Tacoma in Pierce County,
Washington on an existing water conveyance system.
    The Tacoma Project would consist of: (1) Two existing 60-inch
diameter pipelines that originate at the Green River headworks at the
lower end of the Green River Watershed; (2) two new powerhouses to be
located at two points along the pipelines with one 1.8-megawatt (MW)
turbine/generating unit at each; (3) a new three-phase transmission
line (voltage to be determined) connecting to the nearest tie-in point
of a local utility. The project would produce an estimated average
annual generation of about 31,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Duane Pratt, Energy Exchange, Inc., 2711
Centerville Rd., Suite 120--PMB 7023, Wilmington, DE 19808; phone (208)
371-1285.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site. http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13729-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21464 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54129-54135]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21076]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1120; Project Identifier 2019-SW-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Goodrich Externally-Mounted Hoist
Assemblies

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for
various model helicopters with certain part-numbered Goodrich
externally-mounted hoist assemblies (hoists) installed. This action
revises the NPRM by adding a figure and revising certain requirements.
The FAA is proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the
unsafe condition on these products. Since some of these actions would
impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, the agency is
requesting comments on this SNPRM.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Goodrich service information identified in this SNPRM, contact
Collins Aerospace; 2727 E Imperial Hwy., Brea, CA 92821; telephone
(714) 984-1461. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1120; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, this SNPRM,
the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristi Bradley, Aerospace Engineer,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1120; Project Identifier
2019-SW-056-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may again
revise this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission
containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kristi Bradley, Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation &
Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by
adding an AD that would apply to various model helicopters with certain
part-numbered externally-mounted Goodrich hoists installed. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2020 (85, FR 79930).
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing unmodified hoists,
installing placards, revising the existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual
(RFM) for your helicopter, deactivating or removing a hoist if a
partial peel out occurs, reviewing the helicopter's hoist slip load
test records, repetitively inspecting the hoist cable and overload
clutch (clutch), and reporting information to the FAA.
    The NPRM was prompted by a series of EASA ADs, the most recent
being EASA AD 2015-0226R5, Revision 5, dated July 23, 2020 (EASA AD
2015-0226R5), to correct an unsafe condition for various model
helicopters with a Goodrich externally-mounted hoist with one of the
following part numbers (P/Ns) or base P/Ns installed: 42315, 42325,
44301-10-1, 44301-10-2, 44301-10-4, 44301-10-5, 44301-10-6, 44301-10-7,
44301-10-8, 44301-10-9, 44301-10-10, 44301-10-11, 44311, 44312, 44314,
44315, 44316, or 44318. EASA advises of an initial incident of a rescue
hoist containing a dummy test load of 552 lbs. that reeled-out without
command of the operator and impacted the ground during a maintenance
check flight, because the overload clutch had failed. EASA states that
this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to further
cases of in-flight loss of the hoist load, possibly resulting in injury
to persons on the ground or in a hoisting accident.
    Accordingly, EASA AD 2015-0226R5 requires a records review to
determine if the cable has exceeded the allowable limit in previous
load testing, a repetitive load check and test of the clutch slip
value, removal or deactivation of a hoist that cannot be tested due to
lack of approved instructions, replacement of the old clutch P/N with a
new clutch developed by Goodrich to mitigate some of the

factors resulting in clutch degradation, periodic replacement of the
hoist, reduction of the maximum allowable load on the hoist, addition
of operational limitations to the RFM, and replacement of the hoist
after a partial peel out. EASA AD 2015-0226R5 also prohibits the
installation of a replacement cable that has exceeded the allowable
limit in previous load testing. EASA considers AD 2015-0226R5 to be
interim action and advises further AD action may follow.

Comments

    The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters
were EASA, Collins Aerospace, and an individual. The following
discussion presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response.

Request To Clarify Interval Between Overhaul

    EASA requested the FAA clarify why the proposed AD does not include
the reduced time interval between overhaul that is required by EASA's
AD. EASA stated that based on the occurrences and design review, its AD
limits the time between overhaul to 24 months, 1,200 cycles, or 1,600
lifts, which can be extended to 40 months or 2,600 lifts if tests and
documentation are provided to EASA.
    The FAA's proposed AD and EASA's AD differ in that the EASA AD
requires repetitive replacement or overhaul of all affected hoists,
while the FAA's proposed AD would require a one-time replacement of
affected hoists that have not been modified with a new overload clutch
assembly (and re-identified with a ``4'' as the first digit of the
serial number (S/N)). Since the proposed AD would also prohibit
installation of a hoist unless it has a ``4'' as the first digit of the
S/N, this would have the effect of requiring replacement of a non-
modified hoist with a modified hoist. The FAA acquired data from
Collins Aerospace that showed over 1,000 field load checks of hoists
with a new overload clutch assembly with no reports of low pulling
clutches or peel out events. The FAA evaluated this data and determined
that it does not substantiate a 24-month repetitive replacement or
overhaul of hoists that have been modified with the new overload clutch
assembly. The FAA considers this AD action to be an interim action, and
using the additional data reported following issuance of this AD, will
re-evaluate this determination if needed.

Request Regarding Replacement of the Hoist

    One commenter requested the FAA allow installing a new clutch
assembly instead of requiring ``scrapping'' the entire hoist, if the
hoist does not have the number ``4'' as the first digit of its S/N.
    The FAA agrees. The requirement proposed by this AD to replace a
hoist without the number ``4'' as the first digit of its S/N with a
modified hoist would not require removing the hoist from service. The
proposed requirement states to ``replace'' the hoist. This would not
prohibit re-installing a hoist after modifying it to install a new
overload clutch assembly and (re)-identifying it with a ``4'' as the
first digit of the S/N. No changes to this proposed AD are necessary as
a result of this comment.

Safety Concern Addressed by Existing AD

    One commenter stated that this clutch safety concern has already
been addressed by AD 2013-06-51 (78 FR 38826, June 28, 2013) (AD 2013-
06-51), Goodrich Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 44301-10-15, dated
March 8, 2013 (ASB 44301-10-15), and Goodrich ASB No. 44301-10-18,
Revision 6, dated October 10, 2016 (ASB 44301-10-18).
    The FAA agrees that ASB 44301-10-18 specifies procedures to address
this issue. However, while an operator may incorporate the procedures
in this service bulletin into its inspection program, not all operators
are required to do so. In order for these procedures to become
mandatory, and to correct the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM,
the FAA must issue an AD. Further, AD 2013-06-51 (and ASB 44301-10-15,
which is mandated by AD 2013-06-51) requires a one-time cable
conditioning lift and load inspection test as interim corrective
action. AD 2013-06-51 does not require all of the same actions as this
proposed AD.

Requests Regarding Compliance Time for Hoist Replacement

    The individual commenter requested that the FAA change part of the
compliance time for replacing a hoist without the number ``4'' as the
first digit of its S/N from 55 operating hours to 55 hours since the
last clutch overhaul. The commenter's hoist has 89 operating hours and
was overhauled 2 hours ago; the commenter's understanding is that such
a hoist would need to be replaced immediately when the proposed AD
becomes effective.
    The FAA disagrees. If the commenter's hoist has an S/N without the
number ``4'' as the first digit, then at its recent overhaul it was not
modified with a new overload clutch assembly. Thus, it is still subject
to the unsafe condition. Operators in this situation may, under the
provisions of paragraph (h) of this SNPRM, request approval of an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) if sufficient data is submitted
to substantiate an acceptable level of safety.
    Collins Aerospace stated that the compliance time for converting a
hoist to a hoist with a new overload clutch assembly should be 24
months, based on improved risk analysis information from initial load
checks and subsequent load checks.
    The FAA partially agrees. The FAA also determined that 24 months is
an adequate compliance time to mitigate the risk to reasonable levels.
However, the FAA proposed a 12-month compliance time after factoring an
estimated 12-month processing time before issuance of the final rule of
this AD. The FAA did not make any changes to the SNPRM as a result of
these comments.

Requests Regarding the Operating Limitations

    EASA requested the FAA explain why it did not adopt two of the
operating limitations required by EASA AD 2015-0226R5: The limit on the
number of persons that can be hoisted, and the warning that exceeding
15[deg] of lateral pendulum angle/helicopter vertical axis may lead to
clutch slippage.
    EASA AD 2015-0226R5 limits the number of persons that can be
hoisted to two, except when hoisting more persons (such as children)
will not exceed the weight limit. The FAA determined that the maximum
hoist load limitations described in terms of weight alone, without the
extraneous information on the number of persons lifted, are sufficient.
The FAA did not propose to include the lateral pendulum angle of the
hoist cable with respect to the helicopter's vertical axis after
determining that such a limitation would not be measurable or
enforceable. The FAA did not make any changes to the SNPRM as a result
of this comment.
    EASA requested the FAA explain why the proposed AD would require
different temperature ranges for the weight limitations than EASA AD
2015-0226R5 and would omit limitations for OAT below -20 [deg]C.
    The FAA agrees that the maximum hoist load limitations in this
proposed AD should be consistent with those in the EASA AD and that
this proposed AD should include requirements for all temperatures.
Accordingly, the FAA has changed the temperatures in the

maximum hoist load limitations in this SNPRM.
    Collins Aerospace requested the FAA change the proposed maximum
hoist load limitations to distinguishing between non-modified hoists
(without the number ``4'' as the first digit of its S/N) and modified
hoists with a new clutch (with the number ``4'' as the first digit of
its S/N). Collins Aerospace stated that after EASA AD 2015-0226R1 was
issued, Goodrich performed a series of characterization tests that
demonstrated the performance envelope of the modified hoist in various
conditions. According to Collins Aerospace, the results of these tests
as documented in Goodrich Report No. 49000-1087, Revision A, dated July
31, 2017, indicate that margins are maintained with a less restrictive
temperature limitation than those imposed on non-modified hoists.
    The FAA disagrees with requiring different maximum hoist load
limitations for non-modified hoists and modified hoists. After
reviewing the data in the report referenced by the commenter, the FAA
determined it does not demonstrate with an acceptable level of
confidence that less restrictive temperature limitations are
appropriate for modified hoists.

Request To Allow Additional Load Check Tool

    Collins Aerospace requested the FAA change the proposed requirement
to use load check tool P/N 49900-889-104 for the cable conditioning and
a hoist slip load test to also allow using tool P/N 49900-889-103.
Collins Aerospace stated that both are tool kits, with P/N 49900-889-
104 having all of the components of P/N 49900-889-103, plus extra
components so that P/N 49900-889-104 can be used to perform tests on
helicopters with older versions of the large hook damper. Collins
Aerospace further stated that helicopters with newer model dampers and
all other platforms can utilize tool P/N 49900-889-103, which is
expected to supersede tool P/N 49900-889-104 as the older dampers are
removed from service.
    The FAA agrees and has revised this SNPRM accordingly.

Request Regarding Hoist Load Check (Test) After Installation

    EASA requested the FAA explain why the proposed AD does not require
accomplishing a hoist load check (test) after installing a new clutch,
as required by the EASA AD. EASA stated the test will check for any
uncertainties that might develop during handling and storage before
installation.
    The FAA is not aware of any modified hoists with a new clutch
(having a number ``4'' as the first digit of the S/N) failing the hoist
load test. Accordingly, the FAA determined there is insufficient data
to support proposing this as an additional requirement.

Request Regarding Compliance Time for Initial Load Test

    Collins Aerospace requested that, for certain hoists, the FAA
extend the compliance time for the initial hoist slip load test from 30
days to six months. In support of this request, Collins Aerospace
stated the 30 day compliance time calculation is appropriate for non-
modified hoists that have: No improvements from manufacture, repair, or
overhaul after February 1, 2018; not complied with ASB 44301-10-18 or
ASB 44301-10-15; or not had a load check performed. Collins Aerospace
further stated that enough load check tools may not be available to
test all hoists that would be affected by the proposed AD.
    The FAA disagrees with changing the proposed AD to account for
manufacturing improvements because not enough data has been provided to
substantiate the commenter's request. However, the FAA agrees with
providing an allowance for the initial instance of the cable
inspections and hoist slip load test proposed by this AD if those
actions have been accomplished within the last six months. The FAA has
changed the proposed compliance time accordingly.

Request Regarding the Costs of Compliance

    Collins Aerospace stated that replacing a hoist is not necessary as
the clutch can be replaced instead for an average cost of $24,000, plus
8 hours of labor. Collins Aerospace also stated that the cost for the
field load check tool is $11,171.
    The FAA agrees that replacing a hoist without the number ``4'' as
the first digit of its S/N, as required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
SNPRM, may be accomplished by modifying the hoist with the new overload
clutch assembly and re-identifying it with a
    ``4'' as the first digit of the S/N. The FAA has updated the Costs
of Compliance section accordingly.

Comment Regarding Figure 4

    Collins Aerospace stated that although a figure 4 is referenced in
the Required Actions of the NPRM, no figure 4 appears in the NPRM.
    The FAA agrees. Figure 4 to paragraph (e)(2)(iv) of the NPRM (now
Figure 4 to paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this SNPRM), which is necessary to
accomplish the required actions, was inadvertently omitted in
reproduction when the NPRM published in the Federal Register.

Other Differences Between the NPRM and the SNPRM

    In this SNPRM, the FAA has added ``total'' to the compliance time
and usage thresholds for hoists without a ``4'' as the first digit of
its S/N to clarify that it is the total accumulation of time on the
hoist that would trigger the proposed requirement to replace the hoist.
In this SNPRM, the FAA has also added the metric conversion (kg) for
the hoist ratings in the first two figures.
    Lastly, this SNPRM uses an updated format. As a result, paragraph
identifiers have changed.

FAA's Determination

    Affected helicopters include helicopters that have been approved by
the aviation authorities of Canada, Italy, France, and Germany and are
approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's
bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA
about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this
SNPRM after determining the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM.
As a result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    The FAA reviewed ASB 44301-10-18, which specifies maximum hoist
load limitations with respect to ambient temperature and describes
actions and conditions that could reduce the capacity of the clutch.
This service information also specifies procedures for inspecting the
cable and inspecting the clutch by performing a cable conditioning lift
and a hoist slip load test.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements in This SNPRM

    This proposed AD would require:
     Replacing any hoist without a ``4'' as the first digit of
its S/N within 12 months after the effective date of this AD or before
the hoist accumulates 55

total operating hours, 1,200 total hoist cycles (cycles), or 1,600
total hoist lifts (lifts), whichever occurs first.
     Installing placards and revising the existing RFM for your
helicopter to add maximum hoist load limitations, an excessive
maneuvering warning, a maximum sustained bank angle in turn, and a
prohibition on operating the hoist in the event of a partial peel out.
     Deactivating or removing any hoist that experiences a
partial peel out from service.
     Reviewing records for cable load-testing that was
previously performed, and depending on the findings, replacing the
cable.
     Repetitively inspecting the cable, inspecting the clutch
by performing a cable conditioning lift and hoist slip load test,
inspecting the cable a second time, reporting certain information to
the FAA, and depending on these inspection outcomes, replacing the
cable or removing the hoist from service.
    This proposed AD would also prohibit installing an affected
replacement or original installation hoist that has not been re-
identified to indicate it has an improved clutch assembly.
    Installation of a hoist with an improved overload clutch assembly,
which is indicated by having a ``4'' as the first digit of its S/N,
would not terminate the actions required by this proposed AD.

Differences Between This SNPRM and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2015-0226R5 requires repetitively replacing the hoist with
a modified hoist, whereas this proposed AD would require a one-time
replacement of the hoist with a modified hoist that has the improved
clutch assembly installed. EASA AD 2015-0226R5 requires adding a
placard or operational limitation to the RFM warning that exceeding
15[deg] of lateral pendulum angle/helicopter vertical axis can lead to
clutch slippage, and this proposed AD would not. EASA AD 2015-0226R5
requires adding an operating limitation to the RFM limiting the number
of persons who can be hoisted, whereas this proposed AD would not. This
proposed AD would require replacing the cable before the next hoist
operation if a cable has previously been load-tested at more than 1,500
lbs or at an unknown weight during at least one cable pull, while EASA
AD 2015-0226R5 requires this replacement during multiple cable pulls.
This proposed AD would require visually inspecting and measuring the
diameter of the cable before and after performing a cable conditioning
and a hoist slip load test, whereas EASA AD 2015-0226R5 does not. This
proposed AD would require performing the cable conditioning and hoist
slip load test within 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
unless already done within the last 6 calendar months, and thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 6 months, 400 lifts, or 300 cycles. EASA AD
2015-0226R5 specifies performing the hoist slip load test according to
the compliance time of the design approval holder instead. After the
installation (not reinstallation) of a modified hoist, EASA AD 2015-
0226R5 requires performing an initial hoist load check/test prior to
hoisting operation, whereas this proposed AD would not.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this proposed AD would be an interim action. The
inspection reports that would be required by this proposed AD will
enable better insight into the condition of the hoists, and eventually
be used to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once
final action has been identified, the FAA might consider further
rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 2,911 hoists installed on helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor
rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the
FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
    Replacing a clutch would take about 8 work-hours and parts would
cost about $24,000 for an estimated cost of $24,680 per hoist.
Alternatively, replacing a hoist would take about 8 work-hours and
parts would cost about $200,000 for an estimated cost of $200,680 per
hoist.
    Revising the existing RFM for your helicopter and installing
placards would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43
per helicopter and $125,173 for the U.S. fleet.
    Deactivating or removing a hoist that experiences a partial peel
out would take about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170.
    Reviewing records would take about 0.5 work-hour for an estimated
cost of $43 per helicopter and $125,173 for the U.S. fleet.
    Inspecting the cable and performing a cable conditioning lift and
hoist slip load test would take about 2 work-hours for an estimated
cost of $170 per helicopter and $494,870 for the U.S. fleet per
inspection cycle. A (field) load check tool would cost about $11,171.
Reporting the hoist slip load test information would take about 0.25
work-hour for a cost of $21 per helicopter and $61,131 for the U.S.
fleet per reporting cycle.
    Replacing the cable would take about 3 work-hours and parts would
cost about $3,150 for a total replacement cost of $3,405 per hoist.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a 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 take
approximately 0.25 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism

implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Goodrich Externally-Mounted Hoist Assemblies: Docket No. FAA-2020-
1120; Project Identifier 2019-SW-056-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by November 1, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to helicopters, certificated in any category,
with an externally mounted Goodrich hoist assembly (hoist) with a
part number (P/N) or base P/N listed under the Hoist Family column
in Table 1 of Goodrich Alert Service Bulletin No. 44301-10-18,
Revision 6, dated October 10, 2016 (ASB 44301-10-18 Rev 6),
installed. An affected hoist may be installed on but not limited to
the following:

    Note 1 to the introductory text of paragraph (c):  The hoist P/N
may be included as a component of a different part-numbered kit.

    (1) Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS365N3, and EC225LP
helicopters;
    (2) Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) (previously
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+,
EC135P3, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC135T3, MBB-BK 117 C-2, and
MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters;
    (3) Bell Textron Canada Limited (previously Bell Helicopter
Textron Canada Limited) Model 429 and 430 helicopters;
    (4) Bell Textron Inc. (previously Bell Helicopter Textron Inc.)
Model 205A, 205A-1, 205B, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters;
    (5) Leonardo S.p.a. (previously Finmeccanica S.p.A.,
AgustaWestland S.p.A) Model A109, A109A, A109A II, A109C, A109E,
A109K2, A109S, AB139, AB412, AB412 EP, AW109SP, and AW139,
helicopters;
    (6) MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI) Model MD900 helicopters;
    (7) Transport and restricted category helicopters, originally
manufactured by Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Models S-61A, S-61L,
S-61N, S-76A, S-76B, S-76C, S-76D, and S-92A; and
    (8) Restricted category Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B,
UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2500, Cabin
Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by hoists failing lower load limit
inspections. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
hoist overload clutch. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in an in-flight failure of the hoist, which could result in
injury to a person being lifted.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For a hoist without the number ``4'' as the first digit of
its serial number (S/N):
    (i) For hoists that use operating hours to monitor hoist
operation, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD or
before the hoist accumulates 55 total hoist operating hours,
whichever occurs first, replace the hoist. For purposes of this AD,
hoist operating hours are counted anytime the hoist motor is
operating.
    (ii) For hoists that use hoist cycles (cycles) to monitor hoist
operation, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD or
before the hoist accumulates 1,200 total cycles, whichever occurs
first, replace the hoist. For purposes of this AD, a cycle is
counted anytime the cable is extended and then retracted a minimum
of 16 feet (5 meters) during flight or on the ground, with or
without a load.
    (iii) For hoists that use hoist lifts (lifts) to monitor hoist
operation, within 12 months after the effective date of this AD or
before the hoist accumulates 1,600 total lifts, whichever occurs
first, replace the hoist. For purposes of this AD, a lift is counted
anytime the cable is unreeled or recovered or both with a load
attached to the hook, regardless of the length of the cable that is
deployed or recovered. An unreeling or recovery of the cable with no
load on the hook is not a lift. If a load is applied for half an
operation (i.e. unreeling or recovery), it must be counted as one
lift.
    (2) For all hoists identified in the introductory text of
paragraph (c) of this AD, before further flight, install placards
and revise the existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) for your
helicopter by inserting a copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink
changes in Section 2, Limitations, of the RFM Supplement for the
hoist as follows:
    (i) For 500 pound (lb) rated hoists, install a placard with the
information in Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD in full
view of the hoist operator and add the information in Figure 1 to
paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD to the existing RFM for your
helicopter:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30SE21.000

    (ii) For 600 lb rated hoists, install a placard with the
information in Figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD in full
view of the hoist operator and add the information in Figure 2 to
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD to the existing RFM for your
helicopter:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30SE21.001

    (iii) For 500 and 600 lb rated hoists, install a placard with
the information in Figure 3 to paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD in
full view of the pilot and add the information in Figure 3 to
paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD to the existing RFM for your
helicopter.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30SE21.002

    (iv) For 500 and 600 lb rated hoists, install a placard with the
information in Figure 4 to paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this AD in full
view of the pilot and add the information in Figure 4 to paragraph
(g)(2)(iv) of this AD to the existing RFM for your helicopter:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30SE21.003

    (3) For all hoists identified in the introductory text of
paragraph (c) of this AD, as of the effective date of this AD, if a
partial peel out occurs, deactivate or remove the hoist from service
before further flight. For purposes of this AD, a partial peel out
occurs when 20 inches (0.5 meter) or more of the hoist cable reels
off of the hoist cable drum in one overload clutch slip incident.
    (4) For all hoists identified in the introductory text of
paragraph (c) of this AD, within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, review the helicopter's hoist slip load test records. If
the cable was load-tested at more than 1,500 lbs or at an unknown
weight during one or more cable pulls, replace the cable with an
airworthy cable before the next hoist operation.
    (5) For all hoists identified in the introductory text of
paragraph (c) of this AD, within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, unless already done within the last 6 calendar months, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 6 months, 400 lifts, or 300
cycles, whichever occurs first:
    (i) Visually inspect the first 18 inches (45 cm) of the cable
from the hook assembly for broken wires and necked down sections. If
there is a broken wire or necked down section, replace the cable
with an airworthy cable before further flight.
    (ii) Within the first 18 inches (45 cm) of the cable from the
hook assembly, measure the diameter of the cable at the most necked
down area. If the diameter measurement is less than 0.185 inch (4.7
mm), replace the cable with an airworthy cable before further
flight.
    (iii) Using load check tool P/N 49900-889-103 or 49900-889-104,
perform a cable conditioning and a hoist slip load test by following
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(1) through
3.C.(3)(g) of ASB 44301-10-18 Rev 6. If the average of the five test
values is less than the limit shown in Table 2 for 600 lb rated
hoists or Table 3 for 500 lb rated hoists of ASB 44301-10-18 Rev 6,
remove the hoist from service before further flight.
    (iv) Visually inspect the first 30 feet (10 meters) of the cable
from the hook assembly for broken wires, necked down sections,
kinks, bird-caging, flattened areas, abrasion, and gouging. It is
permissible for the cable to have a slight curve immediately after
performing the hoist slip load test. If there is a broken wire,
necked down section, kink, or any bird-caging; or if there is a
flattened area, any abrasion, or a gouge that exceeds allowable
limits, replace the cable with an airworthy cable before further
flight.
    (v) Repeat the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(5)(i) and
(ii) of this AD. If there is a broken wire or necked down section or
the cable diameter measurement is less than 0.185 inch (4.7 mm),
replace the cable with an airworthy cable before further flight.
    (6) Within 30 days after accomplishing the hoist slip load test,
report the information requested in Appendix 1 to this AD by email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or mail to Goodrich, Collins Aerospace;
2727 E Imperial Hwy., Brea, CA 92821.

    (7) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install as a
replacement part or as an original installation an externally-
mounted hoist with a P/N identified in the introductory text of
paragraph (c) of this AD unless it has an improved overload clutch
assembly with the number ``4'' as the first digit of the S/N.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kristi Bradley,
Aerospace Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For Goodrich service information identified in this AD,
contact Collins Aerospace; 2727 E Imperial Hwy., Brea, CA 92821;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(817) 222-5110.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2015-0226R5, Revision 5, dated July
23, 2020. You may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2020-1120.

Appendix 1 to AD ####-##-##

Hoist Slip Load Test Results (Sample Format)

    Provide the following information by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or mail to Goodrich, Collins Aerospace; 2727 E
Imperial Hwy., Brea, CA 92821.

Helicopter Owner/Operator Name:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:

Helicopter Model and Serial Number:

Hoist Part Number:
Hoist Serial Number:
Time since Last Hoist Overhaul (months):
Hoist Operating Hours:
Hoist Cycles:
Hoist Lifts:

Date and Location Test was Accomplished:
Point of Contact for Additional Information:
Air Temperature:
Gearbox Lubricant:

Hoist Slip Load Test Value 1:
Hoist Slip Load Test Value 2:
Hoist Slip Load Test Value 3:
Hoist Slip Load Test Value 4:
Hoist Slip Load Test Value 5:

Hoist Slip Load Test Averaged Test Value:

Any notes or comments:

    Issued on September 22, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-21076 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Time alotted for comments is simply inadequate. I am requesting the comment period to be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1577-1579]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0018]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Reducing the
Illegal Passing of School Buses

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a new information
collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of
the information collection and its expected burden. This new
information collection seeks to assess the knowledge of drivers
nationwide about the laws governing passing a school bus. A Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments
on the following information collection was published on July 17, 2020.
By the close of the comment period, NHTSA received six comments.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden,
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. To find this particular information
collection, select ``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comment''
or use the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Kristin Rosenthal, Highway Safety
Specialist, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W44-245, Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Rosenthal's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and her email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please identify the relevant collection of
information by referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), a
Federal agency must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) before it collects certain information from the public and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a
Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control
number. In compliance with these requirements, this notice announces
that the following information collection request has been submitted to
OMB. A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
public comments on the following information collection was published
on July 17, 2020 (85 FR 43645). NHTSA received six comments by the
close of the comment period. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB), the National School Transportation Association (NSTA), and
David DeVeau provided comments supportive of the proposed information
collection. Gardian Angel, LLC (which submitted the same comment twice)
also provided comments regarding the proposed collection but expressed
concerns about not including the recent NTSB recommendations adopted on
March 31, 2020. Gardian Angel, LLC raised the concern that the data
collection should address the NTSB recommendation, which includes
evaluating various technologies as well as the inclusion of Gardian
Angel, LLC products. To the comment regarding the inclusion of Gardian
Angel, LLC products, NHTSA does not endorse specific products. This
study is focused

on assessing a high-visibility enforcement approach that includes the
use of automated cameras on the school bus. NHTSA will take under
consideration the suggestion to evaluate other technologies at another
time. One anonymous post asked NHTSA to include pedestrian and
bicyclist safety; however, this data collection is specific to school
buses. We appreciate the comments from NTSB, NSTA, Gardian Angel, LLC,
and the individual who provided comment and thank them for thoughtfully
considering the described program.
    Title: Reducing the Illegal Passing of School Buses.
    OMB Control Number: New.
    Form Number: 1559.
    Type of Request: Request for approval of a new information
collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Length of Approval Requested: Three years from date of approval.
    Affected Public: Drivers in the AmeriSpeak panel run by National
Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago and driver
volunteers in two selected communities.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established by the Highway
Safety Act of 1970 to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses due
to road traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. Even though every
State has a law requiring drivers to stop for a stopped school bus
displaying flashing red lights, illegal passing of stopped school buses
is a frequent occurrence across the country. Title 23, Section 403 of
the United States Code gives the Secretary authorization to use funds
appropriated to conduct research and development activities, including
demonstration projects and the collection and analysis of highway and
motor vehicle safety data and related information needed to carry out
that section. NHTSA seeks to assess the knowledge and attitudes of
drivers nationwide about the laws governing passing a school bus (under
the specific State laws where the driver lives) as a function of
varying roadway configurations, flashing yellow and red light
deployment on the school bus, and activation of the stop swing arm on
the bus.
    To make this assessment, NHTSA will conduct a study that consists
of two new voluntary surveys of drivers in the general public. The
first survey will collect data from current drivers of motor vehicles
in the AmeriSpeak panel who volunteer to participate. AmeriSpeak is
funded and operated by National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the
University of Chicago and is a probability-based panel designed to be
representative of the U.S. household population to take part in online
and telephone surveys. Screening and data collection for this national
survey will take place in the respondents' homes or wherever
respondents choose to operate their own computer, laptop, or mobile
device. The second will evaluate the effectiveness of a high visibility
enforcement (HVE) program, including the use of automated cameras on
the school bus in two communities, aimed at reducing violations of the
school bus passing laws. A survey in each community before and after
the HVE application will be part of the evaluation. Screening and data
collection for the community survey will take place on a computer or
tablet provided by the study at a public venue frequented by drivers
across the socioeconomic and demographic spectra, such as a mall or
motor vehicle department office. All collection of data will be
anonymous.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: NHTSA's mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education,
research, safety standards and enforcement activity. The agency
develops, promotes, and implements educational, enforcement,
engineering, and emergency response programs with the goal of ending
preventable tragedies and reducing economic costs associated with
vehicle use and highway travel. One highway safety problem NHTSA has
been following closely involves school children struck by passing
motorists while entering or exiting a stopped school bus with its red
lights flashing and its stop arm extended. Even though there have been
some highly-publicized child fatalities of this type and the annual
national stop-arm violation count by the National Association of State
Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) continues to show
a surprisingly high incidence of these illegal passes, to date, no
national survey has assessed the levels of driver knowledge and
understanding of the laws regarding passing of school buses. The
findings from this proposed collection of information will assist NHTSA
in designing, targeting, and implementing programs intended to mitigate
illegal passing of school buses on the roadways and to provide data to
States, localities, and law enforcement agencies that will aid in their
efforts to reduce crashes and injuries due to illegal school bus
passing.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The study anticipates collecting
3,000 responses to the national survey from members of the AmeriSpeak
panel. It is estimated that up to 3,400 AmeriSpeak panelists will have
to be screened to obtain 3,100 qualified volunteers who take the
national survey (100 of these volunteers are estimated not to complete
the entire survey). For the community surveys, NHTSA estimates that 400
volunteers will have to be screened for each wave (400 for the before-
program implementation and 400 for the after-program implementation)
for each of the two communities. Therefore, a total of 1,600 volunteers
will have to be screened for the estimated yield of 300 completed
surveys for each wave for the two communities, or 1,200 total responses
in the two waves of community surveys at the two selected sites.
    Frequency of Collection: Respondents will only respond to the
national survey request a single time during the study period. The
community survey will be conducted twice at the same locations in each
of the two selected communities over a period of approximately 10
months. Therefore, an extremely small possibility exists that an
individual might be invited to participate more than once for the
community survey. If an individual is asked to participate a second
time, they will be prompted to decline.
    Estimated Time per Participant: Both the national and community
surveys will be administered via an internet-hosted survey on a tablet
or other small computer. The national and community surveys will have
the same core items related to knowledge of and attitudes towards
school bus passing laws. The community survey will have additional
items about awareness of countermeasure program activities and basic
respondent demographic information. Demographic information for the
panelists in the national survey is part of their AmeriSpeak profile.
The intent is for each participant to complete a survey only once.
However, no identifying information will be collected for the community
survey, so a slight possibility exists that an individual will
participate more than once. The estimated average time to complete the
survey per participant in either the national or community sample is 15
minutes. The screening involving (1) reading a recruitment
communication, such as an email or listening to a researcher describe
the study, and (2) determining an individual's eligibility (e.g., 18+
years old, current driver, lives in the community being studied) can
take up

to three minutes for the community surveys and two minutes for the
national survey.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,268 hours for the total
study.
    NHTSA estimates that for the 3,400 AmeriSpeak panelists that will
have to be screened, the estimated total burden is 113 hours (3,400 x 2
min./60). For the 3,100 qualified volunteers who take the national
survey, the estimated total burden hours are 775 hours (3,100 x 15
min./60), yielding at least 3,000 fully completed surveys. Likewise,
the total estimated burden for the maximum of 1,600 potential
participants to be screened for the community survey (400 per wave x 2
communities x 2 waves) is 80 hours (1,600 x 3 min./60). The estimated
total burden hours for the 1,200 fully completed surveys (300 per wave
x 2 communities x 2 waves) is 300 hours (1,200 x 15 min./60). Table 1
provides a summary of the burden hours per survey.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimate
                                                     Number of      burden per       Number of     Total burden
       Participant group            Form name     responses  per     response      participants        hours
                                                    participant       (min.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Survey...............  Screening.......               1               2           3,400             113
National Survey...............  Online Survey...               1              15           3,100             775
Community Survey..............  Screening.......               1               3           1,600              80
Community Survey..............  Online Survey...               1              15           1,200             300
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ................  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: The only cost to participants
will be time spent responding to the screening and the subsequent
survey if they volunteer. Participants who volunteer and begin the
survey will receive compensation for this time.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways for the
department to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses without reducing the
quality of the collected information.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2021-00136 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P