[Federal Register: March 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 58)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14545-14547]
[DOCID:fr26mr10-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0958; FRL-9131-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from refinery vacuum
producing systems and process unit turnaround. We are approving local
rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0958], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rules did the State Submit?
    B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
    C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were amended by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             District                  Rule No.              Rule title               Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................            4453  Refinery Vacuum Producing           12/17/92        08/24/07
                                                     Devices or Systems.
SJVUAPCD..........................            4454  Refinery Process Unit               12/17/92        08/24/07
                                                     Turnaround.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 17, 2007, EPA determined that the submittal for San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rules 4453 and
4454 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    SIP versions of submitted SJVUAPCD rules are old rules from three
of the eight counties that now comprise SJVUAPCD: These SIP-approved
rules are described below:
    Precursor SIP rules for submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4453:
     Kern County Rule 414.2, Refinery Process Vacuum Producing
Devices or Systems (approved on August 21, 1981, 46 FR 42459).
     Kings County Rule 414.2, Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices
or Systems (approved on May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).
     San Joaquin County Rule 413.2, Refinery Vacuum Producing
Devices (approved on May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).
    Precursor SIP rules for submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4454:
     Kern County Rule 414.3, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround
(approved on August 21, 1981, 46 FR 42459).
     Kings County Rule 414.3, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround
(approved on May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).
     San Joaquin County Rule 413.3, Refinery Process Unit
Turnaround (approved on May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules and rule revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. These rules were
developed as part of the local agency's program to control VOCs.
    The purposes of amendments to Rules 4453 and 4454 are as follows:
     4453: The rule requires reducing VOC emissions from
refinery vacuum producing devices by covering hot wells and collecting
vapors for recycle to refinery gas or incineration. The format is
improved, the rule is renumbered, the rule purpose and applicability
are added, and a 90% VOC control efficiency requirement is added.
     4454: The rule requires reducing VOC emissions from a
refinery process unit turnaround by collecting vapors for recycle to
refinery gas, incineration, or flaring. The format is improved, the
rule is renumbered, and the rule purpose and applicability are added.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so these rules must
fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987).
    2. Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
    3. Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16,
1994).
    4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations, EPA (May 25, 1988). [The Bluebook]
    5. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, EPA Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook]
    6. Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater
Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds, EPA-450/2-77-025 (October
1977).
    7. 2007 Ozone Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (April 30, 2007).http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/
2007sip/sjv8hr/sjvozone.htm.
    8. RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (April 16, 2009).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 8, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-6804 Filed 3-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 145)]
[Notices]
[Page 44788]
[DOCID:fr29jy10-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER10-1807-000]

Spark Energy, L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

July 22, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Spark Energy, L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 11, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18599 Filed 7-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49743-49747]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-498-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed White Oak Lateral Project;
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the White Oak Lateral Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Eastern Shore
Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) in Kent County, Delaware. The
Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on September 9, 2013.
    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are in the Public
Participation section of this notice
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Eastern Shore provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?''. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-
asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to
participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Eastern Shore proposes to construct, own, operate, new natural gas
facilities in the Dover area of Kent County, Delaware. The White Oak
Lateral Project would provide about 55,200 dekatherms of natural gas
per day to Calpine Energy Services, L.P. to fuel the Garrison Energy
Center, a proposed 309-megawatt combined cycle natural gas fueled power
plant under development in Kent County, Delaware.
    The White Oak Lateral Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     Approximately 5.5 miles of 16-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline;
     one mainline valves assembly; and
     metering and regulating facility.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb approximately
118 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, Eastern Shore would maintain about 10 acres for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and revert to former uses. Approximately 63 percent
of the proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or
road rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or

portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section beginning on page 4.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Sec.  1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before
September 9, 2013.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the
project docket number (CP13-498-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested persons to
submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP13-
498). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's

calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: August 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

Appendix 1
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU13.004

[FR Doc. 2013-19824 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8821-8824]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-26235; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-065-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes (type certificate previously held by
EADS SOCATA) that would revise AD 2007-04-13. This proposed AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated
by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an
unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe

condition as cracks found on the main landing gear cylinders. We are
issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France;
telephone: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; fax: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; or SOCATA
North America, North Perry Airport, 7501 S Airport Rd., Pembroke Pines,
Florida 33023, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: http://www.socata.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2006-
26235; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<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 proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2006-
26235; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-065-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://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On February 8, 2007, we issued AD 2007-04-13, Amendment 39-14945
(72 FR 7576, February 16, 2007). That AD requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes (type
certificate previously held by EADS SOCATA) and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country.
    Since we issued AD 2007-04-13, Amendment 39-14945 (72 FR 7576,
February 16, 2007), it has been determined that the time between
repetitive inspections should be extended and an optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspections is now available.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2006-0085R2, dated January 16, 2015 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Cracks on several main landing gear (MLG) cylinders have been
reported in service.
    This condition, if not to detected and corrected, could lead to
fatigue cracks in the shock strut cylinder of the MLG, which could
result in a collapsed MLG during take-off or landing runs, and
possibly reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2006-0085 to
require repetitive special detailed inspections (SDI) for cracks of
the MLG shock strut cylinder and, depending on findings, relevant
investigative and corrective actions.
    After that AD was issued, SOCATA performed an analysis to
demonstrate that the inspection interval could be extended, and
developed a reinforced MLG less prone to fatigue, which is embodied
in production through SOCATA modification (MOD) 70-0190-32 and can
be introduced in service through SOCATA Service Bulletin (SB) 70-
130-32 at Revision 03.
    Prompted by these developments, EASA issued AD 2006-0085R1 to
increase the inspection interval and to introduce the installation
of a reinforced MLG on the right hand (RH) side and left hand (LH)
side as an optional terminating action for the repetitive SDI
required by this AD.
    Since that AD was issued, it was found that aeroplanes MSN 639
to 683 (inclusive) are not affected by this AD. The applicability
has therefore been revised to remove those MSN.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2006-
26235.

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    SOCATA has issued DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service
Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft
Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014,
describes procedures for repetitively inspecting the main landing gear
(MLG) for cracks and replacing cracked MLG with a reinforced MLG as a
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. This service
information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access
this service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 431 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S.

operators to be $109,905, or $255 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $6,000, for a cost of
$6,340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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 removing Amendment 39-14945 (72 FR
75776, February 16, 2007), and adding the following new AD:

SOCATA (type certificate previously held by EADS SOCATA): Docket No.
FAA-2006-26235; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-065-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 6, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2007-04-13, Amendment 39-14945, (72 FR 75776,
February 16, 2007) (``AD 2007-04-13'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial
numbers 1 through 638 and 687, that:
    (1) Are not equipped with a left-hand main landing gear (MLG)
body part number (P/N) D68161 or D68161-1 and a right-hand MLG body
P/N D68162 or D68162-1; and
    (2) are certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found on several main
landing gear (MLG) cylinders. We are issuing this proposed AD to
detect and correct cracks in the shock strut cylinder of the MLG,
which could cause the MLG to fail. This failure could result in a
collapsed MLG during takeoff or landing and possible reduced
structural integrity of the airplane. We are revising AD 2007-04-13
to increase the time between the repetitive inspections and to
incorporate an optional modification to terminate the required
repetitive inspections.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:
    (1) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD
2007-04-13), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 1,750
landings but less than 3,501 landings since new:
    (i) Inspect the forging body for cracks within 100 landings
after March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-04-
13), following the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM
Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, dated January 2006,
or DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130,
Revision 3, dated December 2014.
    (ii) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at
intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear
specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.
    (2) As of March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD
2007-04-13), for MLG with forging body totaling more than 3,500
landings since new:
    (i) Inspect the forging body for cracks within 25 landings after
March 23, 2007 (the effective date retained from AD 2007-04-13),
following the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS SOCATA TBM
Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, dated January 2006,
or DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130,
Revision 3, dated December 2014.
    (ii) If no cracks are detected during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, repetitively thereafter inspect at
intervals not to exceed 240 landings until a reinforced landing gear
specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014, is installed.
    (3) If any cracks are detected during any inspection required in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(2) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs:
    (i) Before further flight, remove the affected landing gear leg
and confirm the presence of the crack with dye penetrant inspection
or fluorescent penetrant inspection.
    (ii) If the crack is confirmed, before further flight, contact
SOCATA at the address in paragraph (h) of this AD to coordinate the
FAA-approved landing gear repair/replacement and implement any FAA-
approved repair/replacement instructions obtained from SOCATA, or
replace the cracked landing gear with a reinforced landing gear
specified in paragraph E. Terminating Solution of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin
SB 70-130, Revision 3, dated December 2014. This replacement
terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
    (4) If you do not know the number of landings, follow the
instructions in the Compliance section of EADS SOCATA TBM Aircraft
Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-130, dated January 2006.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2006-0085R2, dated January 16, 2015. You may examine the MCAI on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2006-26235. For service information related to this
AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des Services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9,
France; telephone: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; fax: 33 (0)5 <IP_ADDRESS>; or
SOCATA North America, North Perry Airport, 7501 S Airport Rd.,
Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (954)
964-4141; Internet: http://www.socat.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 6, 2015.
Robert Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-03163 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55074-55075]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice: San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority for San Diego International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of acceptance of a noise exposure map and review of a
noise compatibility program.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the San Diego
County Regional Airport Authority for San Diego International Airport
complies with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, refer
to the supplementary information for details. Further, in conjunction
with the noise exposure maps, FAA is reviewing the proposed noise
compatibility program for the San Diego International Airport, which
the FAA will approve or disapprove on or before February 28, 2023. This
notice also announces the availability of this noise compatibility
program for public review and comment.

DATES: The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise
exposure maps and of the start of its review of the associated noise
compatibility program is September 1, 2022. The public comment period
ends October 31, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David B. Kessler, AICP, Regional
Environmental Protection Specialist, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, El
Segundo, California 90045. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments on the
proposed noise compatibility program should also be submitted to the
above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure maps (NEMs) submitted by the San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority for San Diego International Airport complies
with the applicable requirements of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 150 (14 CFR part 150), effective September 1,
2022. Further, the FAA is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility
program (NCP) for San Diego International Airport that will be approved
or disapproved on or before February 28, 2023. This notice also
announces the availability of this program for public review and
comment.
    Per United States Code (U.S.C.) section 47503 (49 U.S.C. 47503) an

airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet
applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. 49 U.S.C. 47503 requires such maps to be developed in
consultation with interested and affected parties in the local
community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.
    An airport operator who submitted noise exposure maps that the FAA
determined complies with the requirements of 14 CFR part 150, may
submit a noise compatibility program, which sets forth the measures the
operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-
compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-
compatible uses, for FAA approval.
    San Diego County Regional Airport Authority submitted to the FAA on
May 6, 2022, noise exposure maps, descriptions and other documentation
that were produced during the San Diego International Airport 14 CFR
part 150 Update Final Report, dated May 2022. It was requested that the
FAA review this material as the noise exposure maps, as described in 49
U.S.C. 47503, and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented
jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a
noise compatibility program under 49 U.S.C. 47503.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
related descriptions submitted by the San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority. The specific documentation determined to constitute the
noise exposure maps includes: ``Figure NEM-1 Existing 2018 Noise
Exposure Map (NEM);'' ``Figure NEM-2 Future Noise Exposure Map (NEM)
2026.'' The Noise Exposure Maps contain current and forecast
information including the depiction of the airport and its boundaries,
the runway configuration, land uses such as residential, open space,
commercial/office, community facilities, libraries, churches,
infrastructure, and those areas within the Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) 65, 70, and 75 decibel (dB) noise contours. Estimates for
the number of people within these contours for the year 2018 are shown
on Figure NEM-1 Existing 2018 Noise Exposure Map. Figures 3.9 and 3.10
show the location of noise monitoring sites. Flight tracks for the
existing and the forecast Noise Exposure Maps are found in Figures 4.1,
4.2, and 4.3. The type and frequency of aircraft operations (including
nighttime operations) are found in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. The FAA
determined that these noise exposure maps for San Diego International
Airport are in compliance with applicable statuary and regulatory
requirements. This determination is effective on September 1, 2022. The
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data,
information or plans, or constitute a commitment to approve a noise
compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.
    If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map
submitted under 49 U.S.C. 47503, it should be noted that the FAA is not
involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific
properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47503. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land
use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These
local responsibilities are not changed in any way under 14 CFR part 150
or through the FAA's review of noise exposure maps.
    Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps,
or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under 49 U.S.C. 47503. The FAA has relied on
the certification by the airport operator, 14 CFR 150.21, that the
statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
San Diego International Airport, also effective on September 1, 2022.
Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms
to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs,
but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or
disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to
a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before February 28,
2023.
    The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR 150.33. The primary considerations in the
evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the
level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal
of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and preventing the
introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than
those properly addressed to local land use authorities; will be
considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise
exposure maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps, and the proposed noise
compatibility program are available for examination at the following
locations:
    Federal Aviation Administration, Los Angeles Airports District
Office, 777 South Aviation Boulevard, Suite 150, El Segundo, California
90045.
    Sjohnna Knack, Program Manager, Airport Planning & Environmental
Affairs, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, 3270 Admiral
Boland Way, San Diego, California 92101
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in El Segundo, California on September 1, 2022.
Mark A. McClardy,
Director, Airports Division, AWP-600, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-19364 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37701-37703]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0223; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-049-AD;
Amendment 39-17468; AD 2013-11-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-
6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/
B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes.
This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as failure to inspect and maintain
stabilizer-trim attachment components and the flap actuator could
result in loss of control. We are issuing this proposed AD to require
actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 29, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland;
telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 65 01; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 65 76; Internet:
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/#32. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2013 (78 FR
14729), and proposed to supersede AD 2011-01-14, Amendment 39-16571 76
FR 5467; February 1, 2011). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that:

    The mandatory instructions and airworthiness limitations
applicable to the Structure and Components of the PC-6 are specified
in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) under Chapter 4 or in the
Airworthiness Limitations Document (ALS), depending on the aeroplane
model.
    These documents include the maintenance instructions and/or
airworthiness limitations developed by Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. and
approved by EASA. Failure to comply with these instructions and
limitations could potentially lead to an unsafe condition. To
address this potentially unsafe condition EASA issued AD 2010-0176
to require implementation of maintenance instructions and/or
airworthiness limitations in accordance with Pilatus PC-6 ALS issue
1, dated 14 May 2010 and Pilatus PC-6 AMM Chapter 4, issue 12, dated
14 May 2010.
    Since that AD was issued, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd published Pilatus
PC-6 AMM (Number 01975) Chapter 4, issue 16 and PC-6 ALS (Number
02334) issue 3 to introduce a threshold for replacement of
previously not listed Flap Actuator.
    For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirement
of AD 2010-0176, which is superseded, and requires the
implementation of more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitation as specified in issue 16 of Chapter 4 of
AMM and issue 3 of ALS. This AD also requires replacement of any
Flap Actuator which, on the effective date of this AD, has
accumulated or exceeded 7 years since new or since last overhaul.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Use Latest Revision of the Airplane Maintenance Manual

    Pilatus Aircraft stated that the latest revision of the Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) 01975 be quoted in the AD, which is Pilatus
PC-6 B2-H2/B2-H4 Maintenance Manual, document No. 01975, Revision No.
17, dated December 31, 2012. They stated this will prevent applications
for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) shortly after AD release
and that the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) section remained
unchanged in this revision of the AMM. They stated the AMM update was
released after the MCAI was submitted and the Aircraft Limitations

document 02334 at Revision No. 3, dated July 31, 2012, is correct.
    We agree and have added the reference to Pilatus PC-6 B2-H2/B2-H4
Maintenance Manual, document No. 01975, Revision No. 17, dated December
31, 2012 in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

Requested Change to Compliance Time

    Pilatus Aircraft stated they found the specified compliance time
complicated and not as intended in the ALS, therefore, they request the
FAA use the compliance time and grace period as specified in the EASA
AD 2012-0268 or Pilatus proposes a flight hour limitation also be added
to paragraph (f)(3)(ii) in the NPRM. Pilatus commented that should an
operator have more than 8 years but less than 8.5 years actuator
service with no flight hour limitation, the operator with extreme
operating hours may exceed the allowed 3,500-hour TIS or 350-hour TIS
grace period.
    We agree with this comment. We have revised paragraph (f)(3) to
require replacement of the actuator if it has accumulated 3,500 hours
TIS or 7 years or more since new or since last overhauled, with a 350-
hour TIS or 6-month grace period.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 14729, March 7, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 14729, March 7, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 15 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 7 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $8,925, or $595 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (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.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-16571 (76 FR
5467, February 1, 2011) and adding the following new AD:

2013-11-08 Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes: Amendment 39-17468;
Docket No. FAA-2013-0223; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-049-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 29,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD number 2011-01-14, Amendment 39-16571 (76
FR 5467; February 1, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1,
PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-
6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2,
and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN), and
MSN 2001 through 2092, that are certificated in any category.

    Note 1 of paragraph (c):  For MSN 2001-2092, these airplanes are
also identified as Fairchild Republic Company PC-6 airplanes,
Fairchild Industries PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6
airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by inspection requirements of the
stabilizer-trim attachment components. The inspection requirements
have been revised to now include an additional inspection
requirement for the flap actuator. We are issuing this proposed AD
to update the maintenance program with new requirements and
limitations.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) For all affected Models PC-6/B2-H2 and PC-6/B2-H4: Before
further flight after July 29, 2013 (the effective date of this AD),
incorporate the maintenance requirements as specified in Chapter 04,
Airworthiness Limitations, dated July 31, 2012, of the Pilatus PC-6
Maintenance Manual; into your

FAA-accepted maintenance program (maintenance manual).

    Note 2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2012-0268, dated
December 19, 2012, that discusses revision 16 of the Pilatus PC-6
Maintenance Manual. Revision 16 and revision 17 of the Pilatus PC-6
Maintenance Manual both contain the Chapter 04, Airworthiness
Limitations, dated July 31, 2012.

    (2) For all affected Models PC-6 other than the Models PC-6/B2-
H2 and PC-6/B2-H4: Before further flight after July 29, 2013 (the
effective date of this AD), incorporate the maintenance requirements
as specified in Pilatus PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations, Document No.
02334, Revision No. 3, dated July 31, 2012, into your FAA-accepted
maintenance program.
    (3) For all Models PC-6 airplanes: If the actuator has
accumulated 3,500 hours TIS or more since new or last overhauled or
7 years or more since new or last overhauled, whichever occurs
first, replacement of the flap actuator (except part numbers
9<IP_ADDRESS> and 9<IP_ADDRESS>) is required within 350 hours TIS
after July 29, 2013 (the effective date of this AD) or 6 months
after July 29, 2013 (the effective date of this AD), whichever
occurs first. Actuators with less than 3,500 hours TIS or 7 years
since new or last overhauled are covered by the ALS requirement.

 (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

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

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2012-0268, dated December 19, 2012;
and Pilatus PC-6 B2-H2/B2-H4 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM);
Document No. 01975, revision 17; dated December 31, 2012, for
related information. For the Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. related
information use the contact information found in paragraph (i)(3) of
this AD.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations, dated July 31, 2012,
of the Pilatus PC-6 Maintenance Manual.
    (ii) Pilatus PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations, Document No. 02334,
Revision No. 3, dated July 31, 2012.
    (3) For Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. service information identified in
this AD, contact Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Service Manager,
CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 65 01; fax:
+41 (0) 41 619 65 76; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/#32.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 22, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-14967 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28767-28770]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0420; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-241-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-
200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report
of a disbonded doubler and a skin crack in section 41 of the fuselage,
and multiple reports of cracked or missing fastener heads. This
proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the
fuselage skin, discrepant fasteners, and for disbonds at the doublers;
and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. For
certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require a terminating
repair for repair doublers. We are proposing this AD to prevent rapid
decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane due to
such disbonding and subsequent cracking of the skin panels.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 1, 2013.

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.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6428; 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-2013-0420;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-241-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 have received a report of a disbonded doubler and a 10-inch
crack found at 21,800 total flight cycles in the skin in section 41 of
the fuselage; and two reports of cracked or missing fastener heads
found on four airplanes. Cracked and/or missing fastener heads were
found at station (STA) 480 and STA 520 between stringers S-8 and S-10
on airplanes with 10,529 and 10,531 total flight cycles. Also, missing
fastener heads were found between STA 400 and 420 at stringer S-24AL on
airplanes with 28,153 and 28,319 total flight cycles.
    Fatigue cracks can start in the body skin at fastener holes where
internal doublers have disbonded from the skin panel. Fatigue cracks
that are not found and repaired could extend with continued use of the
airplane and could cause a rapid decompression and loss of structural
integrity.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated
February 22, 2012. For information on the procedures and compliance
times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0420.

Terminating Action for Other ADs

     Accomplishing the requirements of this proposed AD
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2006-
20-02, Amendment 39-14771 (71 FR 56861, September 28, 2006).
     Accomplishing the requirements of this proposed AD
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f), (k), and (l) of AD 2006-
24-02, Amendment 39-14831 (71 FR 67445, November 22, 2006).
     Accomplishing the requirements of this proposed AD
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD 2006-24-05,
Amendment 39-14834 (71 FR 68434, November 27, 2006).

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 require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information''.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' might be used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that: (1) Are related to the primary actions, and (2) are actions that
further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related
investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    In addition, the phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in
this proposed AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or
address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
          Action                 Labor cost           Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections..............  878 work-hours x $85                $0   $74,630 per            $7,313,740 per
                            per hour = $74,630                       inspection cycle.      inspection cycle.
                            per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0420; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-241-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 1, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2006-20-02, Amendment 39-14771 (71 FR 56861,
September 28, 2006); AD 2006-24-02, Amendment 39-14831 (71 FR 67445,
November 22, 2006); and AD 2006-24-05, Amendment 39-14834 (71 FR
68434, November 27, 2006).

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated in
any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747,
Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a disbonded doubler and a skin crack in
section 41 of the fuselage, and multiple reports of cracked or
missing fastener heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent rapid
decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane due
to such disbonding and subsequent cracking of the skin panels.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Skin Panel, Fastener, and Doubler Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2,
dated February 22, 2012, except as required by paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(3) of this AD: Do the applicable inspections (including
detailed, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and low frequency eddy
current (LFEC)) for any cracking of the fuselage skin, for
discrepant fasteners, and for disbonds at the doublers; and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, except as
provided by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Repeat the applicable
inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012. Do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012. Options
provided in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated
February 22, 2011, for accomplishing the disbond inspection are
acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this paragraph
provided that the inspection is done at the applicable times in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2011.
    (1) Replacing a skin panel, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747,
Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, is an acceptable alternative to
doing the service repair manual (SRM) skin panel repairs and the
repetitive skin panel inspections specified in tables 1, 2, and 3 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, for only the skin
panel that has been replaced.
    (2) Accomplishment of the terminating repair identified in
tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012,
terminates the repetitive inspections identified in tables 4 and 5
of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, for only the area on
which the terminating repair has been done.

(h) Terminating Action for Repairs

    For airplanes identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2,
dated February 22, 2012: At the applicable compliance time specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, do the terminating
action for the repair doubler, including doing an open hole HFEC
inspection for skin cracks at the fastener holes common to the
inspection area and an inspection for disbond of the internal
doubler; and as applicable, replacing the existing external repair
doubler with a new extended external repair doubler, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, except as provided by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the terminating
action identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2,
dated February 22, 2012, terminates the repetitive inspections
identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22,
2012, for only areas on which the terminating action has been done.

(i) Exceptions to Certain Service Information Instructions

    This paragraph specifies exceptions to certain instructions in
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22,
2012.
    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated
February 22, 2012, specifies a compliance time after the ``original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated
February 22, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for special repair
instructions, this AD requires using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (3) The Condition column of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22,
2012, refers to certain conditions ``as of the original issue date
of this service bulletin.'' This AD, however, applies to the
airplanes with the specified condition as of the effective date of
this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2747, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2011, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(k) Terminating Action for Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the requirements of this AD terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2006-20-02,
Amendment 39-14771 (71 FR 56861, September 28, 2006).
    (2) Accomplishing the requirements of this AD terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (f), (k), and (l) of AD 2006-24-02,
Amendment 39-14831 (71 FR 67445, November 22, 2006).
    (3) Accomplishing the requirements of this AD terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD 2006-24-05, Amendment
39-14834 (71 FR 68434, November 27, 2006).

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager

of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(m) Related Information

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

    Issued in Renton, WA, on May 8, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-11687 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone

   1.    Understanding the time constraints for this review, and that this is a proposal, many reviewers nevertheless have requested more time to review the proposed rule, noting that the proposed changes could affect their regulated entities, stakeholders, and/or borrowers.   These reviewers strongly request that at the final rule stage they are afforded more review time.          2.    Most reviewers requested further documentation in support of the rule, and many reviewers requested further explanation from EPA as to how the technical support documents (TSDs) were constructed.    Those reviewers have provided more specific analytical question along these lines below.

   3.    Since this draft rule amends an economically significant rule, several reviewers recommended that EPA provide an updated RIA for CSAPR, and note incremental impacts to costs and benefits of the proposed amendments.

   4.    Many reviewers requested a redline of the updated draft rule that includes EPA's addition of FL, as well as the regulatory text as it relates to the substantive amendments proposed in the draft proposed rule.

   5.    Several reviewers requested further clarification/explanation on what changed conditions led EPA to increase States budgets.

   6.    Can EPA provide edits to the proposal further clarifying how the  allowance allocation model works?

   7.    Please provide further explanation as to the consequences of the rule, and in particular to the consequences of removing the assurance penalty.  Has EPA considered that the incentive could remain to stick to the individual allocations in 2012 since there would be little time to ensure the availability of credits or time to invest to reduce emissions to create credits?  It is also unclear to some reviewers whether the delay of the assurance penalty would affect the ability to trade within or across states; further clarification on this point would be welcome.        8.    Has EPA considered separating the rulemaking amendments along 2012 and 2014 timelines?  Would EPA consider such a separation more than a technical amendment to the CSAPR rulemaking?  If EPA were to include language along these lines, suggested language as noted in red might be inserted in p. 15 of the draft rule: "It is EPA's intent, in conducting this rulemaking, to make the revisions in this proposal as well as to conduct a clearly defined, time-limited process by which any similarly justified revisions to the final Transport Rule state budgets for 2012 are identified and effectuated in a timely and expeditious manner.  While EPA notes proposed changes for certain states' 2014 budgets are also presented in this draft rule and does not expect to change to these proposed 2014 budgets, the agency recognizes that there is a more immediate need to address 2012 budget adjustments and may address any necessary technical adjustments to the 2014 budget in a subsequent rulemaking.  EPA requests comment on whether the possibility that 2014 budget adjustments may be addressed in a future rulemaking would alter allowance market behavior during the transition years and if so, in what manner stakeholders anticipate the allowance market would react."        9.    P38:  Possible typo: EPA did not consider these immediate-term conditions in its calculation of the Louisiana emission budget in the final Transport Rule.  Shouldn't this be Texas?

   10.    P42:  Some reviewers suggest saying more generally that stakeholders have had multiple opportunities to comment.  The NODA call for comments was fairly narrow, and focused on historical emissions and heat rates, not non-economic dispatch restrictions.   It is conceivable that some commenters felt the NODAs, when considered individually, arguably did not reach all of the issues raised in this draft NPRM.   Regardless of EPA's belief on this point, suggest this editorial change to reflect that there were multiple opportunities to comment with or without the NODAs.

   11.    P. 46:  Suggest EPA include percentage changes for each state's budget relative to the final CSAPR rule in addition to the percentage changes relative to the total budget for the nation.

   12.    EPA mentioned in the interagency briefing that FL also submitted comments on SCR allocations,but a discussion of SCRs does not appear in the current draft. Suggest EPA expressly request comment on the issue of its unit-specific SCR assumptions in FL.

   13.    Suggest EPA clarify in general terms the drivers for the increase in the TX budget further.  For instance what part of the 29% increase in the TX budget results from erroneously assuming that scrubbers exist at W. A. Parish Unit 6, J.T. Deely Unit 1, and J.T. Deely Unit 2 (and what portion of the budget for each unit), and what portion results from the assumed full flue gas treatment in existing scrubbers at Martin Lake, Monticello, Sandow, W.A. Parish, and Oklaunion facilities?  Probably not necessary to provide exact numbers in the preamble, but could EPA highlight where in the TSD an interested party might find this more detailed information?        14.    A few commenters asked whether EPA has considered suspending the CSAPR rulemaking for 1 year while the agency works on technical adjustments for the budgets. At the least, these commenters have asked whether EPA has considered the logistical implications of administering the 2012-2013 phase of the rule if another technical amendment is necessary, especially if there is a possibility that amendment could be made in 2012?          15.    Has EPA analyzed the possible market impacts of changing states' budget allocations?  While the total for all budgets may have increased, certain individual states received significant changes to their budgets, which presumably could alter behavior in the allowance market.         16.     Suggest EPA conduct further analysis (possibly an additional uncertainty analysis) and/or highlight already docketed analysis (such as from the proposed rule) to demonstrate the agency's confidence that the removal of the assurance penalties would not lead to significant contributions to downwind states in 2012 or 2013.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 5078]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1889-088]

FirstLight Hydro Generating Company, FirstLight MA Hydro LLC;
Notice of Comment Period Extension

    On January 8, 2019, the Commission issued a notice setting February
7, 2019, as the end of the formal period to file comments, motions to
intervene, and protests on the application for transfer of license and
substitution of relicense applicant for the Turners Falls Hydroelectric
Project No. 1889. Due to the funding lapse at certain federal agencies
between December 22, 2018 and January 25, 2019, the Commission is
extending the comment period until February 25, 2019.

    Dated: February 11, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02707 Filed 2-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P