[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64183-64184]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1621]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 13, 2016, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed flood hazard determination notice that contained an erroneous
table. This notice provides corrections to that table, to be used in
lieu of the information published at 81 FR 38199. The table provided
here represents the proposed flood hazard determinations and
communities affected for Humboldt County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where
applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community
are available for inspection at both the online location and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1621, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400

C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed in the table below, in
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and
FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR
67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
are made final.

Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 81
FR 38199 in the June 13, 2016, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA
published a table titled ``Humboldt County, Iowa, and Incorporated
Areas''. This table contained inaccurate information as to the date for
the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report featured in the table.
    In this document, FEMA is publishing a table containing the
accurate information. The information provided below should be used in
lieu of that previously published.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 18, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Humboldt County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps available for inspection online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Project 15-07-0903S Preliminary Date: July 31, 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bradgate.......................  City Hall, 202 South Garfield
                                          Street, Bradgate, IA 50520.
City of Dakota City....................  City Hall, 26 5th Street South,
                                          Dakota City, IA 50529.
City of Humboldt.......................  City Hall, 29 5th Street South,
                                          Humboldt, IA 50548.
City of Livermore......................  City Hall, 401 4th Avenue,
                                          Livermore, IA 50558.
City of Lu Verne.......................  City Hall, 109 Dewitt Street,
                                          Lu Verne, IA 50560.
City of Rutland........................  City Hall, 201 Sheridan Avenue,
                                          Rutland, IA 50582.
City of Thor...........................  City Hall, 223 North Ann
                                          Street, Thor, IA 50591.
Unincorporated Areas of Humboldt County  Humboldt County Courthouse, 203
                                          Main Street, Dakota City, IA
                                          50529.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-22476 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: August 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 42070-42072]
[DOCID:fr01au07-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0596; FRL-8141-5]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment or modification of regulations for
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0596 and the pesticide petition number
(PP), by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0596. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of a pesticide petition
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petition described in this notice contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA
has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is
available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 6F7141. Aberdeen Road Company d/b/a Hercon Environmental, P.O.
Box 453, Emigsville, PA 17318-0435, proposes to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical
mating disruptant insecticide (Z)-7,8-epoxy-2-methyloctadecane in or on
food commodities, unintentional spray or drift from application when
treating trees and shrubs along with pastures, as well as unintentional
spray and drift to non-target vegetation including native and
ornamental species, and food and feed crops. Because this petition is a
request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without
numerical limitations, no analytical method is required. Contact:
Andrew

Bryceland,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-14901 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: February 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8656]
[DOCID:fr14fe08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

February 7, 2008.
    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission a copy of the
communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral
communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Docket No.              Date received   Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. EL07-101-000, EL05-121-            2-7-08  Mark Dempsey.
     003, ER07-1233-000, ER05-
     6-044, ER05-6-100, EL04-
     135-103, EL02-111-120,
     EL03-212-116, ER07-1261-
     000, EL04-135-046, EL02-
     111-064, EL03-212-060.
    2. CP07-208-000...........           1-31-08  Sarah Lehman
Exempt:
    Project No. 11910-002.....           1-30-08  Rob Burns
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2717 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28807-28812]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10893]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107; FRL-9946-18-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Interstate Transport for Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on the portions of two submissions from the State of Utah that are
intended to demonstrate that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or
CAA). These submissions address the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. Specifically, the
EPA is proposing to approve interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the
2008 Pb NAAQS, and proposing to disapprove prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2016-0107 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR,

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume,
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (73
FR 16436, March 27, 2008). On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the level
of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ (73 FR 66964,
Nov. 12, 2008).
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address structural SIP elements such as requirements
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP submission required by these
provisions is referred to as the ``infrastructure'' SIP. Section 110(a)
imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA
for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state
submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances.
    CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state (known as the ``good neighbor'' provision). The
two provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant
contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interfere with
maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan
for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4).
    In this action, the EPA is only addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with regard to the 2008 ozone and 2008 Pb
NAAQS.

III. State Submissions and EPA's Assessment

    The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Department or UDEQ)
submitted a certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS on January 19, 2012, a certification of Utah's infrastructure SIP
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on January 31, 2013, and a supplement
regarding CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS on December 22, 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 2008 ozone supplement was submitted
as part of Utah's infrastructure SIP certification for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of these infrastructure certifications addressed all of the
infrastructure elements including element (D).\2\ In this action, we
are only addressing element (D) prongs 1 and 2 from the 2008 Pb
certification, 2008 ozone certification, and the December 22, 2015
supplement which addressed prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. All
other infrastructure elements from these certifications are being
addressed in separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For discussion of other infrastructure elements, see EPA's
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' September
13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 Ozone NAAQS

    In its January 31, 2013 2008 ozone infrastructure submittal, UDEQ
addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 by citing EPA Administrator
Gina McCarthy's November 19, 2012 memo \3\ which outlined the EPA's
intention to abide by the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
The EME Homer City decision addressed the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) promulgated by the EPA to address the interstate transport
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS, the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS,
and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Among other things, the D.C.
Circuit held that states did not have an obligation to submit SIPs
addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements
as to any NAAQS until the EPA first quantified each state's emissions
reduction obligation. Id. at 30-31. In its submittal, the Department
noted that the EPA had not quantified Utah's transport obligation as to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that Utah's infrastructure SIP was therefore
adequate with regard to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memo from Gina McCarthy to Air Division Directors, Regions
1-10 re: Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State
Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision
Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Nov. 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the UDEQ submission, on April 29, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit's EME Homer City
decision on CSAPR and held, among other things, that under the plain
language of the CAA, states must submit SIPs addressing interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) within three
years of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, regardless of
whether EPA first provides guidance, technical data or rulemaking to
quantify the state's obligation. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601

(2014). UDEQ therefore additionally addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1
and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of its December 22, 2015
infrastructure submittal that otherwise addressed the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. As stated, the EPA is proposing action on both
the January 31, 2013 and December 22, 2015 certifications with regard
to prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    In its subsequent December 22, 2015 infrastructure submittal, UDEQ
acknowledged the changed legal landscape, and asserted that emissions
from the State did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
The Department cited air quality modeling assessing interstate
transport of ozone that was released by the EPA on August 4, 2015, and
explained that it did not consider the modeled contribution levels to
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area
and in southern California to be significant.
    As noted by UDEQ, the EPA shared technical information with states
to assist them with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA developed this technical information
following the same approach used to evaluate interstate contribution in
CSAPR in order to support the recently proposed Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3,
2015) (``CSAPR Update Rule''). In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air
quality analyses to determine whether an eastern state's contribution
to downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds.
If a state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality
threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not
considered to significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of
the standard in those downwind areas. If a state exceeded that
threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into
account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated
below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same approach the EPA
used in CSAPR to establish an air quality threshold for the evaluation
of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that projects interstate
transport contributions for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\4\ The modeling data released in the NODA was also used to
support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule and is also cited by UDEQ in its
updated 2008 ozone submittal. Since the moderate area attainment date
for the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018, states will use 2015
through 2017 ambient ozone data in order to demonstrate attainment by
this attainment deadline--meaning the 2017 ozone season will be the
last full season from which data can be used to determine attainment of
the NAAQS. The D.C. Circuit's decision in North Carolina v. EPA
requires that the EPA coordinate interstate transport compliance
deadlines with downwind nonattainment deadlines. As noted in EPA's
proposed CSAPR Update Rule, the Agency interprets the North Carolina
decision to compel EPA to identify upwind reductions and implementation
programs to achieve these reductions, to the extent possible, for the
2017 ozone season. Therefore, the EPA determined that 2017 is an
appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining
interstate transport for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Agency used
photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at
air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone
contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to
model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites
with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA used
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone
Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability
Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected
receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling
domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent
portions of Canada and Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August
4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA used the modeling released in the NODA to support its
proposed CSAPR Update rulemaking (80 FR 75706, Dec. 3, 2015). As
discussed in our CSAPR Update Rule proposal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
the air quality modeling (1) identified locations in the U.S. where the
EPA anticipates nonattainment or maintenance issues in 2017 for the
2008 ozone NAAQS (these are identified as nonattainment and maintenance
receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions from
emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the
receptors in 2017. Id. at 75720-30. Consistent with the framework
established in CSAPR, the EPA proposed to use a threshold of one
percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify
linkages between upwind states and the downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors. In the proposed CSAPR Update Rule, the EPA
considered eastern states \5\ whose contributions to a specific
receptor meet or exceed the threshold ``linked'' to that receptor and
we analyzed these states further to determine if emissions reductions
might be required from each state to address the downwind air quality
problem. Id. at 75728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the proposed CSAPR Update Rule, ``eastern''
states refer to all contiguous states east of the Rocky Mountains,
specifically not including: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New
Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to western states, the EPA noted that the 2017 implementation
timeframe constrained the opportunity to evaluate the applicability of
these criteria to such states and whether additional criteria should be
considered in certain circumstances as to western states. Therefore,
the EPA proposed to focus the rulemaking on the eastern states while
requesting comment on whether to include western states. Id. at 75709.
Consistent with our statements in the proposed CSAPR Update Rule, the
EPA intends to address western states, like Utah, on a case-by-case
basis. The modeling data released in the NODA on August 4, 2015, are
the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our
analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. We
intend to use these data to help evaluate the state's submittals and
any potential emission reduction obligations as to the 2008 ozone
standard under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    As noted earlier, in CSAPR the EPA proposed an air quality
threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment
on whether one percent was appropriate.\6\ The EPA evaluated the
comments received and ultimately determined that one percent was an
appropriately low threshold

because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions
to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple
upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or
lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the contribution
modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of different possible
thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's analysis showed
that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total
pollution transport affecting downwind states, while the use of higher
thresholds would exclude increasingly larger percentages of total
transport. For example, at a five percent threshold, the majority of
interstate pollution transport affecting downwind receptors would be
excluded.\7\ In addition, the EPA determined that it was important to
use a relatively lower one percent threshold because there are adverse
health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels.\8\ The
EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would
result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentages of
fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative
to the amounts captured at the one percent level. The EPA determined
that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction
responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very
small impact on those receptors -- an indicator that emission controls
in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the
downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold
below one percent is necessary or desirable.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \7\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds, Docket ID
# EPA-hq-oar-2009-0491.
    \8\ CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236-37 (August 8, 2011).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's
previous use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\10\ The projected contribution from
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled
ozone, and then compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR,
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\11\ The EPA has subsequently
proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of evaluating
interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard in eastern
states in the CSAPR Update Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's recent air quality modeling shows that multiple upwind
states collectively contributed to projected downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in Colorado. In particular, the EPA found that
the total upwind states' contribution to ozone concentrations (from
linked and unlinked states) to identified downwind air quality problems
in Colorado is about 11 percent.\12\ Thus, the EPA has found that the
collective contribution of emissions from upwind states represent a
large portion of the ozone concentrations at projected nonattainment
and maintenance receptors in Colorado. As noted, the Agency has
consistently found that the one percent threshold is appropriate for
identifying interstate transport linkages for states collectively
contributing to downwind ozone nonattainment or maintenance problems
because that threshold captures a high percentage of the total
pollution transport affecting downwind receptors. The EPA believes
contribution from an individual state equal to or above one percent of
the NAAQS could be considered significant where the collective
contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states is responsible
for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality problem
regardless of where the receptor is geographically located. In this
case, five of the states contributing to those identified receptors,
including Utah, contribute emissions greater than or equal to one
percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Given this data, the EPA is proposing
to find that the NODA modeling and its use of the one percent threshold
are also appropriate to determine linkages from Utah to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Colorado with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The stated 11% is based on the highest upwind contributions
to nonattainment or maintenance receptors in each area. All
nonattainment and maintenance receptors had upwind contributions at
9% or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 1 and 2 summarize the air quality modeling results from the
August 4, 2015 NODA modeling. The modeling indicates that Utah
contributes emissions above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with
respect to four receptors in the Denver, Colorado area. These tables
show the monitors in the Denver area to which Utah emissions are
modeled to contribute above one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The NODA modeling had taken into account the shutdown of
the Carbon Power Plant, which was shut down in April 2015. See
Carbon Permit Revocation Letter, in the docket for this action.

                     Table 1--Maintenance Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Utah modeled
              Monitor I.D.                           State                      County             contribution
                                                                                (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80050002................................  Colorado..................  Arapahoe..................            1.66
80590011................................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            1.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Table 2--Nonattainment Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Utah modeled
              Monitor I.D.                           State                      County             contribution
                                                                                (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80350004................................  Colorado..................  Douglas...................            1.59

80590006................................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            0.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah's largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment
site is 1.59 ppb, and its largest contribution to any projected
downwind maintenance-only site is 1.66 ppb. Since the NODA modeling
indicates that the contributions from Utah are above the one percent
threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, the EPA is proposing to
determine that Utah significantly contributes to nonattainment and
interferences with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Denver,
Colorado area.
    UDEQ states that, despite the modeling results, emissions from the
State do not significantly contribute to nonattainment in the Denver
area, but the State does not provide any technical analysis to explain
why it believes the modeling results are inaccurate or why, if the
results are accurate, the State's level of contribution to Denver-area
receptors should be deemed insignificant. Moreover, UDEQ does not
address the State's modeled contributions to projected downwind
maintenance receptors identified by the EPA. Rather, UDEQ cites various
SIP-approved area source rules which it asserts will result in
additional reductions in ozone precursor emissions as further evidence
that emissions from the State do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The
Department listed several VOC emissions limitations on various
industries submitted as part of the State's greater PM2.5
control strategy which were recently approved by EPA.\14\ UDEQ also
pointed to a rule prohibiting the sale of water heaters that do not
comply with low NOX emission rates which will go into effect
on November 1, 2017. UDEQ argued that because NOX and VOC
are precursors to ozone, these emission limitations would further
reduce ozone transport to nonattainment and maintenance receptors in
both Colorado and California, but failed to quantify or explain how
these limitations would significantly reduce Utah ozone emissions. UDEQ
did not discuss emissions limits or reductions from any other source
categories, such as large electric generating units (EGUs) within the
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For more detail, see EPA's final action on these area
source rules at 81 FR 9343, February 25, 2016, and the associated
docket at EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the EPA considers the measures UDEQ described to be
beneficial in reducing ozone transport, UDEQ has not provided any
analysis to demonstrate that the reductions will be sufficient to
significantly reduce Utah ozone emissions. The Department did not
quantify the total anticipated reductions in NOX and VOC
emissions from its listed regulations or evaluate the impact of those
reductions in downwind air quality at the Denver area receptors. As
explained above, the NODA modeling indicates that in spite of the
measures Utah describes, emissions from sources in Utah contribute well
above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area.
UDEQ has not provided any technical analysis to contradict that
information.
    UDEQ also states in the 2015 submission that the State does not
believe it significantly contributes or interferes with maintenance of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS in southern California, citing the State's VOC and
NOX emission limitations. UDEQ also cites the general west
to east wind direction in the western U.S. as further evidence that
Utah emissions are unlikely to significantly impact ozone pollution in
southern California. Although the State did not provide a particular
technical analysis to support this conclusion, EPA's modeling released
in the August 4, 2015 NODA confirms UDEQ's assertion that the State
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in California.
    As explained earlier, UDEQ's SIP submissions do not provide an
adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in
any other state. Moreover, EPA's most recent modeling indicates that
emissions from Utah are projected to contribute to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area.
Accordingly, EPA proposes to disapprove the portion of the January 31,
2013 SIP submittal and the December 22, 2015 submittal addressing CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed action
and will consider public comments received during the comment period.

2008 Pb NAAQS

    UDEQ's analysis of potential interstate transport for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS discussed the lack of sources with significant Pb emissions near
the State's borders. The Department also noted that there are no Pb
nonattainment areas in states neighboring Utah.
    As noted in our October 14, 2011 Infrastructure Guidance Memo,
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse
fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. See ``Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).'' October 14, 2011 at 8. For this reason, the EPA found that
the requirements of subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2)
could be satisfied through a state's assessment as to whether or not
emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to their state
borders have emissions that impact the neighboring state such that they
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in that state. Id. at 8. In that guidance document, the EPA further
specified that any source appeared unlikely to contribute significantly
to nonattainment unless it was located less than two miles from a state
border and emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. UDEQ's
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis specifically noted that there are no
sources in the State that meet both of these criteria. EPA concurs with
the State's analysis and conclusion that no Utah sources have the
combination of Pb emission levels and proximity to nearby nonattainment
or maintenance areas to contribute significantly to nonattainment in or
interfere with maintenance by other states for this NAAQS. Utah's SIP
is therefore adequate to ensure that such impacts do

not occur. We are proposing to approve UDEQ's submittal with regard to
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008
Pb NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and proposing to disapprove
prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on consideration of
modeling results in EPA's August 4, 2015 NODA. The EPA is soliciting
public comments on this proposed action and will consider public
comments received during the comment period.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely proposes approval of some state law as
meeting federal requirements and proposes disapproval of other state
law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action
does not propose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     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 the 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, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 26, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2016-10893 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40074-40076]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0465; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-085-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a determination that oxygen generators installed on a
certain batch of passenger emergency oxygen container assemblies might
become detached by extreme pulling of the mask tube at the end of
oxygen supply causing a high temperature oxygen generator and mask to
fall down. This proposed AD would require modifying the passenger
emergency oxygen container assembly. We are proposing this AD to
prevent a high temperature oxygen generator and mask from falling down
and possibly resulting in an ignition source in the passenger
compartment, injury to passengers, and reduced availability of
supplemental oxygen.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 19, 2013.

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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.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 Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0465;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-085-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0055, dated April 3, 2012 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been determined that oxygen generators, installed on a
specific batch of Type 1 (22 minute) passenger emergency oxygen
container assemblies, may become detached by extreme pulling of the
mask tube at the end of oxygen supply. Investigations revealed that
such detachment can be caused by the increase in temperature towards
the end of the generator operation, which may weaken the plastic
housing in the attachment area of the bracket.
    This condition, if not corrected, could make the rivets slip
through the plastic housing, causing a `hot' oxygen generator and
mask to fall down, possibly resulting in injury to passengers.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the affected oxygen container assemblies. This
[EASA] AD also prohibits the installation of the affected
(unmodified) containers on any aeroplane as replacement parts.

    The modification consists of adding a reinforcement plate at the
rear outside of the container and adding two washers to the rivets at
the inside of the container to prevent the generator from detaching.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the following service bulletins.
     Service Bulletin A320-35-1049, dated June 15, 2011.
     Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated June 15, 2011.
     Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15, 2011.
     Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011.
     Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011.
     Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011.
     Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011.
    The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 4 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per oxygen container assembly to
comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Where the service information lists
required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed
that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control
warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs
higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $680 per oxygen
container assembly.

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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-0465; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
085-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 19, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -
133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -
233 airplanes; A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -
232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that oxygen generators,
installed on a certain batch of passenger emergency oxygen container
assemblies, might become detached by extreme pulling of the mask
tube at the end of oxygen supply causing a high temperature oxygen
generator and mask to fall down. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
high temperature oxygen generator and mask from falling down and
possibly resulting in an ignition source in the passenger
compartment, injury to passengers, and reduced availability of
supplemental oxygen.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Oxygen Container Assembly Modification

    Except as specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD, within 5,000 flight cycles, or 7,500 flight hours, or 24
months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD:
Modify each type 1 (22 minute) passenger emergency oxygen container
assembly installed on an airplane, having a part number (P/N) listed
in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number (S/N) listed
in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049,
dated June 15, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated
June 15, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15,
2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011;
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011; Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011; as applicable.
    (1) An oxygen container that has a part number listed in
paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number as listed in
paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and that has been modified in
accordance with the instructions of B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin
1XC22-0100-35-006, is compliant with the modification requirement of
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (i) Oxygen container part numbers listed in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i)(A) through (g)(1)(i)(D) of this AD, where xxxx stands for
and alphanumerical value.
    (A) 13C22Lxxxxx0100.
    (B) 13C22Rxxxxx0100.
    (C) 14C22Lxxxxx0100.
    (D) 14C22Rxxxxx0100
    (ii) Oxygen container serial numbers listed in paragraphs
(g)(1)(ii)(A) through (g)(1)(i)(H) of this AD.
    (A) ARBC-0182 to ARBC-9999, inclusive.
    (B) ARBD-0000 to ARBD-9999, inclusive.
    (C) ARBE-0000 to ARBE-9999, inclusive.
    (D) BEBF-0000 to BEBF-9999, inclusive.
    (E) BEBH-0000 to BEBH-9999, inclusive.
    (F) BEBK-0000 to BEBK-9999, inclusive.
    (G) BEBL-0000 to BEBL-9999, inclusive.
    (H) BEBM-0000 to BEBM-0454, inclusive.
    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus modification 150704 has not been
embodied in production are excluded from the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part
number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number
listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is installed.

    (3) Airplanes on which Airbus modification 150704 has been
embodied in production and that are not listed by model and
manufacturer serial number in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049,
dated June 15, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated
June 15, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15,
2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011;
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011; Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011; as applicable,
are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD,
unless an oxygen container with a part number listed in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number listed in paragraph
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD is installed.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  The oxygen container
assemblies listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and paragraph
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD are B/E Aerospace products with the mark ``B/E
AEROSPACE'' on the identification plate.

(h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, an oxygen container with a part number listed in
paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, and serial number listed in
paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, unless the oxygen container has
been modified according to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049,
dated June 15, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated
June 15, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15,
2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011;
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011; Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011; as applicable.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0055, dated
April 3, 2012; and the following service bulletins; for related
information.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049, dated June 15, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated June 15, 2011.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15, 2011.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011.
    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011.
    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011.
    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.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, Washington, on June 14, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-15950 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61561-61563]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1313; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-158-AD;
Amendment 39-16823; AD 2011-20-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700,
-700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD requires inspecting to determine the
clearance and any wire bundle damage between wire bundle W443 and the
left forward rudder quadrant, followed by adjusting the minimum
clearance between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant,
and repairing any wire bundle damage. This AD was prompted by reports
of contact between wire bundle W443 and the left forward rudder
quadrant. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct contact between
the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant. Damage to the
wire bundle from contact between the wire bundle and the left forward
rudder quadrant could result in uncommanded stabilizer trim and
autopilot disconnects due to shorted wires, potentially affecting the
capability of the flightcrew during high work load and consequently
reducing control of the airplane. Restricted movement of the rudder
quadrant at full right rudder travel would reduce controllability of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 9, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 9,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 2840). That NPRM proposed to require
inspecting to determine the clearance and any wire bundle damage
between wire bundle W443 and the left forward rudder quadrant, followed
by adjusting the minimum clearance between the wire bundle and the left
forward rudder quadrant, and repairing any wire bundle damage.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and Continental Airlines (CAL)
support the NPRM (76 FR 2840, January 18, 2011), and stated that they
have been inspecting the affected airplanes in accordance with the
original issue and revision 1 of the service information cited in the
NPRM.

Request for Boeing To Add Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICAs)

    CAL requested that the FAA ask Boeing to add the appropriate ICAs
to

the Boeing 737NG Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), because CAL is
concerned about inadvertently undoing the corrective actions proposed
in the NPRM (76 FR 2840, January 18, 2011) during future maintenance.
    We disagree with the request to ask Boeing for ICAs. Current
maintenance procedures and inspections ensure that the unsafe condition
corrected in accordance with the AD will not be undone during future
maintenance. A maintenance task exists to do a general visual
inspection (GVI) of the area above the outboard nose wheel well, an
inspection derived from the enhanced zonal analysis procedure (EZAP).
This GVI of the area includes inspecting the wire bundles for damage
and ensures no interference (riding) condition exists. Also, the rudder
travel test provided in the AMM already includes steps to verify that
wire bundle W443 has a minimum clearance of 0.5 inch from the left
forward rudder quadrant at full travel motion while someone operates
the rudder pedals, which captures the intent of this AD action. Boeing
has updated the 737NG AMM to Revision 45, dated June 15, 2011, to
include minimum clearance of 0.5 inch for the rudder travel test. We
have not changed the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 870 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                               Action                                   Work-hours     Average labor       Cost per        registered       Fleet cost
                                                                                rate per hour       product         airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................................................               2              $85             $170              870         $147,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-20-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16823; Docket No. FAA-
2010-1313; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-158-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective November 9, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports of contact between wire
bundle W443 and the left forward rudder quadrant. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct contact between the wire bundle and
the left forward rudder quadrant. Damage to the wire bundle from
contact between the wire bundle and the left forward rudder quadrant
could result in uncommanded stabilizer trim and autopilot
disconnects due to shorted wires, potentially affecting the
capability of the flightcrew during high work load and consequently
reducing control of the airplane. Restricted movement of the rudder
quadrant at full right rudder travel would reduce controllability of
the airplane.

Compliance

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

Wire Bundle W443 Inspection and Clearance Measurement

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
detailed inspection of wire bundle W443 for damage and measure for
sufficient clearance, in accordance with Part 1 of the Work
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-
1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010. If the wire bundle is
undamaged, and sufficient clearance exists, no further action is
required by this AD.

Wire Bundle W443 Undamaged: Clearance Adjustment

    (h) If the clearance of wire bundle W443 in the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD is found to be insufficient,
before further flight, adjust the wire bundle clearance, in
accordance with Part 2 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14,
2010.

Wire Bundle W443 Damaged: Repair, and Clearance Adjustment

    (i) If wire bundle W443 is found to be damaged in the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair
the damaged wire bundle and adjust the wire bundle clearance, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14,
2010.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (j) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-27-
1282, dated March 15, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding action specified in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(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 e-mailed 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.

Related Information

    (l) For more information about this AD, contact Dean Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-
27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010, to do the actions required
by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-27-1282, Revision 1, dated June 14, 2010, under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 22, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25313 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P