[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23226-23228]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0441]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile Marker 27.8 to Mile Marker 28.2,
Vanport, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker 27.8 to mile
marker 28.2 near the Vanport Highway Bridge. This safety zone is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by two separately occurring cargo movements
near the Vanport Highway Bridge in Vanport, PA. Entry of vessels or
persons into the zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 18, 2018
through 6 p.m. on May 27, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 8 a.m. on May 12, 2018 through May 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0441 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MM Mile marker
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On May 8, 2018, Bechtel notified the Coast Guard that there will be
two cargo movements in the vicinity of the Vanport Highway Bridge that
could create potential hazards for the bridge's structural integrity
over the next several weeks. The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary
rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to
authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
(5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for
good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because it is impracticable. We did not receive notice of these
cargo operations until May 8, 2018. The safety zone must be established
by May 12, 2018, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this
rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety
zones until after the dates of the cargo operations and compromise
public safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to protect the public and vessels from the potential
safety hazards associated with the cargo movement operation.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with two cargo movement
operations that will take place between May 12, 2018 and May 27, 2018
will be a safety concern for anyone within a half-mile stretch of the
Ohio River. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in the navigable waters before, during, and
after the cargo movements.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone for all navigable waters of the
Ohio River from mile marker 27.8 to mile marker 28.2. It is effective
from 8 a.m. on May 12, 2018 through 6 p.m. on May 27, 2018. Entry into
the safety zone during the enforcement period is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Subject to the
cargo delivery intervals and potential inclement weather, the periods
of enforcement will be 30 minutes prior to, during, and 1 hour after
any cargo movement near the Vanport Highway Bridge. The Coast Guard was
informed that the two cargo movement operations would take place during
daylight hours only and last approximately 4 hours each. A safety
vessel will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement
periods. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public
through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notices to Mariners
(LNM), and/or Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIBs), or through
other means of public notice, as appropriate, at least 3 hours in
advance of the enforcement periods. The duration of the zones is
intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
these navigable waters during cargo movement operations. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated
representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of Marine
Safety Unit Pittsburgh. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or
67. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zones. This safety
zone will be enforced for a period of approximately four hours on two
separate days between May 12, 2018 and May 27, 2018 on less than a half
mile of the Ohio River. The Coast Guard will issue LNMs, BNMs, and
MSIBs, about the temporary safety zone, and this rule allows vessels to
seek permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter
the safety zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
these safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have

analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a safety zone that prohibits entry on a half-mile stretch of the Ohio
River for 4 hours between May 12, 2018 and May 27, 2018. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination
will be made available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0441 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0441   Safety Zone; Ohio River mile marker 27.8 to mile
marker 28.2, Vanport, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Ohio River from mile marker (MM) 27.8 to MM 28.2.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8 a.m. on May
12, 2018 through 6 p.m. on May 27, 2018.
    (c) Enforcement period. Subject to cargo delivery intervals and
potential inclement weather, this section will be enforced on two
separate occasions during the effective period. Each will be 30 minutes
prior to, during, and 1 hour after any cargo movement in the vicinity
of the Vanport Highway Bridge. The Captain of the Port Marine Safety
Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative will inform the
public of the enforcement period through Broadcast Notice to Mariners
(BNM), Local Notices to Mariners (LNM), and/or Marine Safety
Information Broadcasts (MSIBs) or through other means of public notice
at least 3 hours in advance of the enforcement period. A safety vessel
will coordinate all vessel traffic during the enforcement of these
safety zones.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into the zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP or designated representative. A designated
representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG
Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into the safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67.
    (3) All persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone
must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement through LNMs, BNMs, or MSIBs as appropriate.

    Dated: May 11, 2018
L. McClain, Jr.,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2018-10625 Filed 5-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17594-17597]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0288; Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-007-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Textron Aviation Inc. Models A36TC and B36TC airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust tailpipe fell off
during takeoff. This proposed AD would add a life limit to the exhaust
tailpipe v-band coupling (clamp) that attaches the

exhaust tailpipe to the turbocharger and, if the coupling is removed
for any reason before the life limit is reached, this proposed AD would
require an inspection of the coupling before reinstalling. We are
proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0288; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Teplik, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0288;
Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-007-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We were notified of a fatal accident involving a Textron Aviation
Inc. (Beech Bonanza) Model A36TC airplane. The National Transportation
Safety Board preliminary report stated that shortly after takeoff the
pilot advised the control tower that there was smoke in the cockpit and
they needed to return to the airport. Witnesses reported seeing smoke
and flames coming from the airplane before it impacted terrain. The
exhaust tailpipe, a fractured v-band coupling (clamp) that attached the
exhaust tailpipe to the turbocharger, and small fragments of fabric
insulation were recovered from the runway. Failure of the exhaust
tailpipe v-band coupling may lead to detachment of the exhaust tailpipe
from the turbocharger and allow high-temperature exhaust gases to enter
the engine compartment, which could result in an inflight fire.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would add a life limit to the exhaust tailpipe v-
band coupling and, if the coupling is removed for any reason before the
life limit is reached, this AD would require an inspection of the v-
band coupling before reinstalling.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 499 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of the exhaust tailpipe v-  2 work-hours x $85 per              $300            $470        $234,530
 band coupling (clamp).                  hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspection that
would be required based on removal and reinstallation of the exhaust
tailpipe v-band coupling. We have no way of determining the number of
airplanes that might need this inspection:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the exhaust tailpipe v-band       1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85  Not applicable             $85
 coupling (clamp).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII,

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

Textron Aviation Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0288; Directorate
Identifier 2017-CE-007-AD

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 30, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. Models A36TC and B36TC
airplanes; all serial numbers, that are certificated in any
category.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 81, Turbocharging.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a fatal accident where the exhaust
tailpipe fell off during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling that may lead to
detachment of the exhaust tailpipe from the turbocharger and allow
high-temperature exhaust gases to enter the engine compartment,
which could result in an inflight fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement of the V-Band Coupling (Clamp)

    Replace the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling part number (P/N)
N4211-375-M or P/N 5322C-375-Z (P/Ns are also known as P/N N4211-
375M and P/N 5322C3752) with a new exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling.
When installing the new part, tighten the v-band coupling to 40 in-
lbs., tap the periphery of the band to distribute tension, and
torque again to 40 in-lbs. Do the replacement at the compliance
times in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD. For the purposes of
this AD, the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling may also be referred
to as the exhaust tailpipe v-band clamp.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: The engineering drawing
lists the applicable part number v-band couplings as P/N N4211-375-M
and P/N 5322C-375-Z; however, the parts catalog lists the applicable
v-band couplings as P/N N4211-375M and P/N 5322C3752.

    Note 2 to paragraphs (g) and (h)(2) of this AD: We recommend
after installation of the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling, you do
an engine run and recheck the torque of the v-band coupling.

    (1) If from a review of the maintenance records you can
positively identify that the hours time-in-service (TIS) for the
exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling is less than 500 hours TIS: Do the
initial replacement within 500 hours TIS for the exhaust tailpipe v-
band coupling or within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and replace repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS on the exhaust
tailpipe v-band coupling.
    (2) If from a review of the maintenance records you can
positively identify that the hours TIS for the exhaust tailpipe v-
band coupling is 500 hours TIS or more or you cannot positively
identify the hours TIS for the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling: Do
the initial replacement within 50 hours TIS after the effective date
of this AD and replace repetitively thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 500 hours TIS on the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling.

(h) Removal of the Exhaust Tailpipe V-Band Coupling Before Reaching the
500-Hour Life Limit

    (1) If the exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling is removed for any
reason before any replacement required by this AD, before re-
installing the same (existing) v-band coupling, you must do the
inspection steps listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
AD. During the removal, inspection, and reinstallation do not open
the coupling more than necessary because excessive flexing of the
coupling can lead to damage.
    (i) Use crocus cloth and mineral spirits/Stoddard solvent, to
clean the outer band of the v-band coupling. Pay particular
attention to the spot weld areas on the coupling.
    (ii) Use a 10X magnifier to visually inspect the outer band for
cracks, paying particular attention to the spot weld areas. If
cracks are found during this inspection, do not re-install the v-
band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band
coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of
the v-band coupling.
    (iii) Visually inspect the flatness of the outer band using a
straight edge. Lay the straight edge across the width of the outer
band. The gap must be less than 0.062 inches. See figure 1 to
paragraphs (h)(1)(iii) and (v) of this AD. If the gap exceeds 0.062
inches between the outer band and the straight edge, do not re-
install the v-band coupling. Before further flight, you must install
a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive
replacement of the v-band coupling.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP17.000

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    (iv) With the t-bolt in the 12 o'clock position, visually
inspect the coupling for the attachment of the outer band to the v-
retainer coupling segments by inspecting for gaps between the outer
band and the v-retainer coupling segments between approximately the
1 o'clock through 11 o'clock position. It is recommended to use
backlighting to see gaps. If gaps between the outer band and the v-
retainer coupling segments are found, do not re-install the v-band
coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band
coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of
the v-band coupling.
    (v) Visually inspect the bend radii of the coupling v-retainer
coupling segments for cracks. Inspect the radii throughout the
length of the segment. See figure 1 to paragraphs (h)(1)(iii) and
(v) of this AD. If any cracks are found, do not re-install the v-
band coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band
coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of
the v-band coupling.
    (vi) Visually inspect the outer band opposite the t-bolt for
damage (distortion, creases, bulging, or cracks), which may be
caused from excessive spreading of the coupling during installation
and/or removal. If any damage is found, do not re-install the v-band
coupling. Before further flight, you must install a new v-band
coupling and restart the hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of
the v-band coupling.
    (2) If the removed exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling passes all
of the inspection steps listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (vi)
of this AD, you may re-install the same v-band coupling. After the
coupling is re-installed and torqued as specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD, verify there is space between each v-retainer coupling
segment below the t-bolt. If there is no space between each v-
retainer coupling segment below the t-bolt, before further flight,
you must install a new v-band coupling and restart the hours TIS for
the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
    (3) The inspections required in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of
this AD only apply to re-installing the same exhaust tailpipe v-band
coupling that was removed for any reason as specified in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD. It does not apply to installation of a new v-band
coupling. These inspections do not terminate the 500-hour TIS
repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling and do not restart the
hours TIS for the repetitive replacement of the v-band coupling.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a used
exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling on the airplane except for the
reinstallation of the inspected exhaust tailpipe v-band coupling
that was removed for any reason as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Thomas Teplik,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 3, 2017.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-07343 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 Forwarded by Tom Land/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 08/ 18/ 2004 08: 26 AM   " Smith, Burleson" < Burleson. Smith@ usda. gov> 08/ 03/ 2004 04: 17 PM To: "' Lee, Amanda I.'" < Amanda_ I._ Lee@ omb. eop. gov>, "' Fraas, Ar thur G.'" < Arthur_ G._ Fraas@ omb. eop. gov> cc: Adam Sharp/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Robert Meyers/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Drusilla Hufford/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Tom Land/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Brian Doster/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, " DAHL, MEREDITH  OGC" < MEREDITH. DAHL@ usda. gov>, "' DVanHoog@ CEQ. EOP. gov'" < DVanHoog@ CEQ. EOP. gov> Subject: RE: Edits to methyl bromide Amanda and Art,

Here are the comments that USDA has on the proposed methyl bromide allocation rule. The first file contains edits/ issues raised by our Office of General Counsel. The second document is a compilation of edits that reflect our changes to content, in many cases, reflecting the changes that OGC mentioned.

As this is a proposed rule, some who reviewed it here have stated that they are confused as to what course of action the document is proposing to take. This is especially true after reading the Preamble before reading the rule language itself. Even after reading the entire document, a reader may wonder what is finally proposed. Some changes have been suggested for such clarity.

We are concerned that EPA asks explicitly for comments 48 times in the document. The number of instances where " EPA is seeking comment" is likely to elicit many conflicting substantive suggestions which will take time to summarize in the EPA response. As the entire document is intended to solicit comments, we suggest limiting the requests to three main areas for input: 1. Lump sum or sector specific allocations 2. Supply amounts from existing stocks versus new production/ consumption 3. User access to existing stocks  inside versus outside of CUEs I have discussed several of these changes with Bob Meyers and Brian Doster at EPA.

Sorry for the delay. Let me know if you have any questions. After OMB and EPA consider the points listed here, we clear the document for the next steps.

Burleson 720 2889  Original Message From: Lee, Amanda I. [ mailto: Amanda_ I._ Lee@ omb. eop. gov] Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 6: 05 PM To: Smith, Burleson Cc: Fraas, Arthur G. Subject: Edits to methyl bromide Hi Burleson would you take a look at the language below and give your reactions to Art ( hopefully by Monday)? Thanks,

Amanda ( found 2 paragraphs before " B. What is the proposed regulatory framework...," approximate p. 22)

In developing today's action, the Agency's also considering another option for making the determination regarding the amount of methyl bromide available from existing stocks and seeks comments on this option and the proposal. For the 2005 calendar year, the Agency could make a determination that the amount of methyl bromide available from existing stocks is simply based on the difference between the limit on methyl bromide for critical uses and the limit on new production and import in the Decision Ex. I/ 3. This approach would adopt the use and production/ import levels for methyl bromide specifically identified by Decision Ex I/ 3  that is, an upper limit on critical use of 8,942 metric tons and an upper limit on the amount of new production and import of 7,659 metric tons in 2005. This approach would reflect the fact that the Decision affords Parties flexibility in reading a decision on the level of production and import needed to meet use needs. Had the Parties wished for a more specific course of action with respect to a determination on available stocks, they could have adopted specific language to do so.

( found in definitions in the reg text section)

Critical use means a circumstance in which the following two conditions are satisfied: ( 1) there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes for methyl bromide available to end users that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances involved, and ( 2) the lack of availability of methyl bromide for a particular use would result in a significant market disruption in the United States.

Limiting critical condition means the regulatory, technical, and economic circumstances listed in Appendix L to this subpart that establish conditions of critical use for methyl bromide in a fumigation area. Such conditions may include, but are not limited, to ( 1) the absence of technically or economically effective alternatives to methyl bromide for a specific use; ( 2) regulatory restrictions that prohibit the use of available alternatives in a specific fumigation area; ( 3) or terrain, soil, or climatological conditions that render use of available alternatives technically or economically infeasible in a specific fumigation area.