[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40847-40848]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER07-1010-000]

Sumas Cogeneration Company, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of Order

July 17, 2007.
    Sumas Cogeneration Company, L.P. (Sumas) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity
at market-based rates. Sumas also requested waivers of various
Commission regulations. In particular, Sumas requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Sumas.
    On July 16, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by Sumas should file a protest 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, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is
August 15, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Sumas is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,

indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Sumas, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Sumas' issuance of securities or assumptions of
liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-14306 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 23222]
[DOCID:fr29ap08-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-56-000]

New Brunswick Power Transmission Corp., New Brunswick System
Operator, Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc.,
Complainants v. ISO New England, Inc., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

April 21, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 18, 2008, New Brunswick Power
Transmission Corporation, New Brunswick System Operator, and Northern
Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. (collectively,
Complainants), pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power
Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and Rule 206 of Practice and Procedures of
the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 385.206, hereby file this
complaint against ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE). Complainants state
that this complaint is in response to the ISO-NE unilateral decision to
arbitrarily limit the transfer capabilities at the New Brunswick/New
England external interface, which, for the reasons set forth in the
complaint, is unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 8, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9301 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 173)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46327-46329]
[DOCID:fr09se09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0397; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-023-AD;
Amendment 39-16018; AD 2009-19-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, B2-203, B2K-
3C, B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This 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:

    An operator has reported the loss of a centre flap inner tab on
an in-service A300 aircraft. The centre flap inner tab detached
during approach to an airport. A similar event was reported several
years ago on a pre-mod 04770 aircraft. * * *
    * * * Investigations led by the manufacturer revealed that the
centre hinge bracket developed a fatigue crack causing complete
failure of the bracket. The tab rotated causing failure of the
inboard link followed by the failure of the outboard link.
    [D]etachment of a centre flap inner tab * * * could be a
potential risk to persons on [the] ground * * *.
* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 14, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 14,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 April 30, 2009 (74
FR 19908). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    An operator has reported the loss of a centre flap inner tab on
an in-service A300 aircraft. The centre flap inner tab detached
during approach to an airport. A similar event was reported several
years ago on a pre-mod 04770 aircraft. Previous failure at the aft
lug of the centre brackets led to the issuance of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-0205.
    In the most recent case, the aircraft had been modified in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 (Airbus
modification No. 04770). Investigations led by the manufacturer
revealed that the centre hinge bracket developed a fatigue crack
causing complete failure of the bracket. The tab rotated causing
failure of the inboard link followed by the failure of the outboard
link.
    To avoid a detachment of a centre flap inner tab, which could be
a potential risk to persons on [the] ground, this AD requires a
repetitive [high frequency eddy current] inspection of the centre
flap inner tab hinge bracket and replacement of the bracket when
cracks are detected * * * [and] reporting of inspection results to
the TC holder [and provides] an optional terminating action. * * *
* * * * *
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received.

Request for Clarification of Reporting Requirement

    TradeWinds Airlines points out that although paragraph (e),
``Reason,'' of the NPRM describes reporting inspection results to the
Type Certificate holder, the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2),
and (f)(3) of the NPRM currently have no information that describes the
reporting requirement.
    We infer that TradeWinds Airlines is asking us to clarify the
reporting requirement, and we agree that clarification is necessary.
Paragraph (e) of the NPRM quotes European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD 2007-0299R2, dated October 28, 2008. The EASA AD includes reporting;
however, this AD does not require reporting. We have updated Note 1 of
this final rule to clarify this difference. We also removed paragraph
(g)(3) of the

proposed AD because that paragraph provides reporting requirement
information and it is unnecessary to include that information in this
final rule.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change
will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the
scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 55 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $96,800, or $4,400 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 the NPRM, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2009-19-01 Airbus: Amendment 39-16018. Docket No. FAA-2009-0397;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-023-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
14, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, B2-203, B2K-3C,
B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C airplanes, certificated in any category,
all serial numbers, except airplanes which have been modified in
accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0252
(Airbus Modification 13400).

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    An operator has reported the loss of a centre flap inner tab on
an in-service A300 aircraft. The centre flap inner tab detached
during approach to an airport. A similar event was reported several
years ago on a pre-mod 04770 aircraft. Previous failure at the aft
lug of the centre brackets led to the issuance of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-0205.
    In the most recent case, the aircraft had been modified in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 (Airbus
modification No. 04770). Investigations led by the manufacturer
revealed that the centre hinge bracket developed a fatigue crack
causing complete failure of the bracket. The tab rotated causing
failure of the inboard link followed by the failure of the outboard
link.
    To avoid a detachment of a centre flap inner tab, which could be
a potential risk to persons on [the] ground, this AD requires a
repetitive [high frequency eddy current] inspection of the centre
flap inner tab hinge bracket and replacement of the bracket when
cracks are detected * * * [and] reporting of inspection results to
the TC holder [and provides] an optional terminating action. * * *
* * * * *

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the times specified in Table 1 or Table 2 of this AD, as
applicable, perform a high frequency eddy current inspection to
detect fatigue cracks of the center hinge bracket of the center flap
inner tab (on both wings), in accordance with Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-57-0250, Revision 01, dated September 29,
2008. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 850 flight cycles.

Table 1--Airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 Has Not
                                Been Done
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Flight cycles accumulated since first
flight as of the effective date of this          Compliance time
                   AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 6,000 flight cycles..........  Prior to accumulating 6,000
                                          flight cycles since first
                                          flight or within 90 days after
                                          the effective date of this AD,
                                          whichever occurs later.
6,000 flight cycles or more, but less    Within 850 flight cycles after
 than 12,000 flight cycles.               the effective date of this AD.
12,000 flight cycles or more...........  Within 500 flight cycles after
                                          the effective date of this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2--Airplanes on Which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 Has
                                Been Done
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Flight cycles accumulated since Airbus
     Service Bulletin A300-57-0205
 modification as of the effective date           Compliance time
               of this AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 6,000 flight cycles..........  Prior to accumulating 6,000
                                          flight cycles since Airbus
                                          Service Bulletin A300-57-0205
                                          modification or within 90 days
                                          after the effective date of
                                          this AD, whichever occurs
                                          later.
6,000 flight cycles or more, but less    Within 850 flight cycles after
 than 12,000 flight cycles.               the effective date of this AD.
12,000 flight cycles or more...........  Within 500 flight cycles after
                                          the effective date of this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) If any crack is detected during any inspection required by
this AD, before further flight, replace the center hinge bracket in
the accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0250,
Revision 01, dated September 29, 2008. Within 6,000 flight cycles
after replacing the center hinge bracket, do the inspection required
by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, and if no cracking is found, repeat
the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 850 flight
cycles.
    (3) Modifying the inboard tab of the center flaps in accordance
with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0252, dated August
27, 2008, terminates the requirements of this AD.
    (4) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0250,
dated November 2, 2007, are considered acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: Although the European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2007-
0299R2, dated October 28, 2008 and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-57-0250, dated November 2, 2007, specify to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal
avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal
inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
    (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.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Airworthiness Directive 2007-0299R2, dated
October 28, 2008; Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0250,
Revision 01, dated September 29, 2008; and Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A300-57-0252, dated August 27, 2008; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0250,
Revision 01, excluding Appendix 1, dated September 29, 2008, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
If you do the optional terminating modification specified by this
AD, you must use Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0252, dated August
27, 2008, to perform that action, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.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> or<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 NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 31, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-21411 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUMMARY

I. Introduction

On April 30, 2007, the President of the United States, the President of
the European Council, and the President of the European Commission
signed the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration
Between the United States of America and the European Union (EU).  The
agreement’s Annex 1 lists a number of activities affecting different
U.S. and EU agencies and sectors.  One activity listed in the Annex 1 is
“initiating an exchange on conformity assessment procedures for the
safety of electrical equipment.”  Pursuant to this activity in Annex
1, representatives from the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and two other offices within the Department of
Labor (DOL) met with representatives from the European Commission (EC)
on October 11, 2007, to exchange information concerning their respective
conformity assessment (CA) systems for ensuring the safety of electrical
equipment.  The topics covered by each government’s team are shown in
the attached agenda, and the information presented is summarized below.
This exchange moved forward the EU and U.S. effort to address the
concerns raised as part of the Framework agreement in particular its
Section II, that aims at rationalizing, reforming, and, where
appropriate, reducing regulations, removing unnecessary differences
between our regulations to foster economic integration.

NOTE: 	As agreed following the meeting, neither the US or EC has edited
the other’s summary.  Also, for brevity, the summaries do not capture
all of the discussions or information covered on a particular topic.

II. Summary of OSHA’s Information

OSHA generally mandates that electrical products be approved by
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs) before these products
― regardless of country of origin ― can be used in a U.S. workplace.
 NRTLs are private organizations that have demonstrated technical
expertise in product safety testing and certification, and their
approvals comprise the testing and certification of particular products.
 OSHA’s NRTL Program determines whether an organization meets the
necessary requirements to be granted “NRTL” status.  OSHA’s
third-party approval requirements constitute a “pre-market” approval
system, which means that all products must be determined to be safe by a
third party before they enter the market.  In making that determination,
the NRTL performs “pre-market inspections” of a product’s
manufacturing process to assure that all units of the product are safe,
and to ensure that the manufacturer is using the NRTL’s certification
mark appropriately.  The NRTL’s control of its mark is fundamental to
assuring that products inspected by the NRTL continue to be safe for use
in the workplace.  The NRTL Program is relied upon by employers and the
public, and by many government and non-government entities in the U.S.
and abroad.

Throughout the exchange, OSHA’s goal was for both the US and EC to
gain an understanding of the other’s system for regulating and
ensuring the safety of electrical equipment.  This information would
enable OSHA to better understand the foundation and details of the
EC’s proposal for OSHA to consider adopting the EU’s system of
conformity assessment, Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC).
The proposal contained broad statements that OSHA’s requirements are
costly and onerous to trade, in particular to EU exporters.  Thus, OSHA
sought to demonstrate to the EC that OSHA’s third-party system is in
fact “trade-friendly,” containing flexibilities that facilitate
trade.

OSHA’s Rulemaking Process and Enforcement

OSHA’s mission is to protect the safety and health of American workers
by requiring employers to follow rules that have been developed through
a wholly transparent rulemaking process.  OSHA’s mandate, as set forth
in the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, is “to assure, so far
as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions.”  OSHA’s rules, which are called
“standards,” can be imposed only on employers.  These rules must be
promulgated through a public notice and comment process, and must be
based on the “rulemaking record.”

The rulemaking process may begin with a proposal submitted by any of
various sources, including states, advisory committees, and other
stakeholders.  OSHA will often publish a Request for Information (RFI)
or Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) regarding the proposal
in order to solicit more information from other stakeholders about how
the proposed change would affect worker safety and health.  If OSHA
receives enough information supporting a decision to move forward with a
proposal, OSHA will prepare and publish a proposed rule, which is
followed by a hearing.  OSHA then analyzes all the information it has
acquired in order to create a final rule, which is then published.  The
publication of any final rule, standard, or decision must be accompanied
by a full explanation of the reasons for the action, which in turn must
be based on the full record of the rulemaking.

As an example of the above process, the Information Technology Industry
Council (ITIC), a computer industry association, suggested some years
ago that OSHA allow manufacturers to test their own products as an
alternative to third-party approvals for ensuring the safety of
electrical products used in the workplace.  This system of manufacturers
self-testing is commonly referred to as Supplier’s Declaration of
Conformity (SDoC). OSHA analyzed the information it received through an
RFI and concluded that the information received did not justify
initiating rulemaking proceedings to adopt some version of an SDoC
system.

Employers must protect employees even if there is no specific OSHA rule
governing a hazard.  This is stipulated through the General Duty Clause
of the OSH Act, which requires that each employer furnish its employees
a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or
serious physical harm in addition to complying with all the standards
promulgated by OSHA.  OSHA enforces its standards by inspections of
workplaces.  If the employer is not abiding by OSHA’s standards, OSHA
may issue a citation ordering abatement and imposing penalties.  OSHA
also may make criminal referrals to the U.S. Department of Justice.

OSHA Requirements for NRTL Approval

OSHA’s requirement for third-party approval of electrical products by
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTLs) is set forth under 29
CFR Part 1910, Subpart S. These requirements were originally placed on
employers through the rulemaking process.  OSHA concluded in these
rulemakings that requiring third-party testing of electrical products is
reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of employees.
 OSHA has twice updated Subpart S, through the notice and comment
rulemaking process, and each time the Agency has maintained the
third-party approval requirements intact.  OSHA requires NRTL approval
of electrical equipment because, among other reasons, such equipment has
many internal components and cannot easily be inspected by a simple
visual examination.

OSHA’s approval requirement applies equally to all manufacturers,
regardless of country of origin.  Thus, it is trade-friendly in the
sense that the same requirement applies to both domestic and overseas
manufacturers.

OSHA’s Third-party Approval System

NRTLs test certain electrical products and certify that these products
meet consensus-based industry standards of safety to provide assurance
that they are safe for use in the U.S. workplace.  Since its inception
in the early 1970s, OSHA has relied on third-party approval to ensure
that electrical and other specific types of equipment are safe.  The
U.S. has relied on third-party testing for nearly 100 years.  OSHA’s
reliance on NRTLs has been a successful collaboration between government
and private industry that has provided OSHA and employers great
assurance that products are tested appropriately for use in the
workplace. The system is simple, open, low-cost, flexible, and
trade-friendly.  The NRTL Program is the agency’s tool for
implementing the system.

NRTL Product Approval Process

NRTL product approval is a multi-step process.  First, a product
manufacturer contracts with the NRTL for its testing and certification
services.  Second, the NRTL, or a “qualified party” it has approved
for this purpose, performs initial tests on a sample or prototype of the
product to ensure it conforms to the applicable standards.  (Those
“qualified parties” can be product manufacturers and other
independent labs.)  If the product does not conform, the NRTL requires
the manufacturer to make the necessary corrections and submit the
product for retesting.  This process is repeated until the product
conforms.  When the product passes the safety tests, the NRTL issues a
test report.  Third, the NRTL performs an inspection of the production
line at each facility where the product is manufactured and, if the
quality and technical controls are adequate, certifies the product and
authorizes the use of the NRTL’s certification mark for the product.
After issuing this authorization, the NRTL performs “follow-up”
inspections of the manufacturing facilities to ensure the manufacturer
continues to produce the product as certified and uses the NRTL’s mark
only as authorized.  If, during these follow-up inspections, any
deviations from the terms approved by the NRTL are found, they must be
resolved or the approval for the use of the mark is revoked.  Qualified
manufacturers can make minor product modifications without pre-approval
by the NRTL.

NRTL factory inspections are not burdensome.  These inspections of
production facilities by the NRTL assure that a manufacturer’s
products are safe before they enter the market and are fundamental
elements of a third-party system.  These inspections can provide this
assurance for 100% of the manufactured products, depending on the type
and potential hazards of the product.

NRTL Program Operations

OSHA’s NRTL Program regulations (29 CFR 1910.7) specify four
performance-based requirements that an organization must meet to obtain
and maintain its NRTL status.  Three broadly define the necessary
technical capability for the testing and certification operations.  The
fourth specifies that the NRTL be completely independent of employers,
manufacturers, and vendors of the items it tests.  This is the
cornerstone of the NRTL Program and key to ensuring that products are
tested appropriately.  There are no elaborate or complicated rules
governing how the program is to be operated; each NRTL determines how it
will conduct its own testing and certification activities, consistent
with general OSHA policies applicable to those activities.  For example,
NRTLs must maintain proper and adequate testing procedures for their
product approval activities.  The NRTL, not OSHA, decides the nature and
extent of the testing procedures needed.  OSHA then reviews these
testing procedures as part of determining if they are adequate.

The NRTL Program involves only two main functions: 1) reviewing and
processing organizations’ applications for recognition under the
program, and 2) auditing the sites of each NRTL annually to ensure it
continues to meet program requirements and to maintain the quality of
their operations.  Through these audits, OSHA ensures the NRTLs are
adequately policing their marks.  Because the number of NRTLs is
relatively small, the program’s staff is also small.  As a result,
annual program costs are less than U.S. $1 million.

The NRTL Program is open to laboratories from any country and requires
the same data from all applicants.  NRTLs currently operate in the U.S.,
Canada, Europe, and Asia.    Thirty-seven categories of products require
NRTL approval - the largest category being electrical products and
equipment, including those used in hazardous locations.

The NRTL Program is relied upon by all OSHA State-plan states, many
state and local electrical code enforcement authorities, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, phone companies for equipment certification
requirements, foreign testing organizations under the IEC-CB scheme, and
other government and private accreditation organizations.  Most
important is the reliance on the NRTL system by employers and employees
to ensure the products they purchase are safe.

Product Safety Test Standards

The NRTL system requires the use of product safety test standards of
U.S. standards organizations.  NRTLs can use the harmonized version of
these standards, which deviate in varying respects from the
international version due to country-specific requirements.  The U.S.
harmonized versions are commonly published by Underwriters Laboratories
and the American National Standards Institute.  OSHA requires that the
test standards used by NRTLs be consistent with U.S. national consensus
standards and codes and be developed under a fair and open consensus
process.  Input to these standards is provided primarily by industry and
other interested parties.

Enforcement of the Use of NRTLs’ Marks

NRTLs do not enforce OSHA requirements; instead, they enforce the use of
their own certification marks.  Only NRTL marks are acceptable in U.S.
workplaces.    Each NRTL enforces the use of its mark through contracts
with the manufacturers that require initial testing of the product and
the periodic inspections of the manufacturing facilities.  During
initial testing, the NRTL ensures that the product meets the
requirements of the applicable consensus-based standards.  As part of
this step, it will require all major components to either be tested or
to already bear a specific NRTL mark.  If components change
subsequently, the manufacturer must inform the NRTL.  During
inspections, NRTLs assure that the components of the product have not
changed.  This control is in place even if the products are manufactured
in another country.  The nature and frequency of the NRTL’s
inspections provide the assurance that a manufacturer continues to
produce products that are safe.

NRTLs, not OSHA, conduct “post-market” surveillance, including
testing of purchased products.  Each NRTL, and not OSHA, determines the
type of post-market activities it will undertake and the procedures it
will follow for this surveillance.

Flexibilities to Facilitate Trade

The NRTL Program has optional procedures in place to avoid duplication
of the conformity assessment of products.  These options permit the
NRTLs to accept test results from either one of its own recognized
sites, other facilities under control of this recognized site, or other
“qualified parties,” including independent laboratories and the
product manufacturers themselves.  .

Through these options, if an EU manufacturer has the qualifications to
do the testing or has used testing done by a qualified test lab, the
NRTL can rely on the testing submitted by the manufacturer and avoid any
retesting.  In Europe alone, there are 250 labs or manufacturers that
provide testing to NRTLs.  In addition, NRTLs that are members of the
internationally recognized IEC-CB scheme may use testing performed by
organizations accredited under that scheme.  This scheme was
established, in large part, to facilitate trade (export or import) of
electrical products.  Under this scheme, a manufacturer in one country
has its product tested by one of its country’s member labs.  This lab
issues a test report that the manufacturer can use to have its product
approved for export to another country by presenting the report to a
member lab of that country.

These various options allow NRTLs to rely on other qualified entities to
perform testing and certification.  This can reduce the cost and time
required to acquire NRTL product approvals which in turn reduces the
cost and time-to-market for products requiring NRTL approval.  The
NRTL’s responsibility is to ensure the accuracy of the data provided
from these qualified entities.  NRTLs work closely with qualified large
and small manufacturers to avoid any unnecessary delays and costs.

OSHA is planning to propose an adjustment to the NRTL program which
would introduce additional flexibility. The proposed change would allow
NRTLs to use “satellite” sites to do product certification in
addition to testing; currently such sites can only test, but cannot
certify, products.  These “satellite” sites may be operated by the
NRTL or by another organization under the NRTL’s control.  This
proposed program responds to industry concerns about delays in getting
products certified, but does not compromise the safety of the approved
product.

OSHA’s 2005 RFI Regarding a Proposed SDoC System

OSHA issued a Request for Information in November 2005 regarding a
proposal from the Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC), an IT
industry association, to adopt SDoC for IT equipment.  The ITIC proposal
asserted that an SDoC system would reduce time-to-market delays imposed
by different countries’ differing requirements.  However, the proposal
provided no information to explain these differences.  The industry
hoped that OSHA’s adoption of SDoC would positively influence other
countries in their deliberations on what conformity assessment scheme to
implement.

The purpose of the RFI was to gather information to help OSHA adequately
understand the workings of existing SDoC systems and operations,
including their basic purpose, their comparative costs and benefits, and
their problems and limitations.  The RFI also sought information
addressing the validity of the claims in the ITIC proposal.

The process yielded little data and confirmed that, to ensure any degree
of safety of products in an SDoC system, the government must conduct
aggressive post-market surveillance, which OSHA does not currently have
authority to perform.  The OSH Act does not include specific provisions
for OSHA to conduct product recalls and bans and to implement other
necessary elements of this post-market surveillance system.

OSHA analyzed all the information gathered through the RFI process and
concluded that no data was presented that justified a change to an SDoC
system.  As a result, OSHA decided to take no further action on the ITIC
proposal.

III. Summary of EC’s Information

In the EU all products must be determined to achieve a high level of
safety before they enter the market.  The EU obliges manufacturers to
certify their own products and maintain a technical file regarding the
product’s safety for inspection by surveillance authorities.  There is
no obligation to use third parties in the certification process, but the
technical file must contain evidence that the product complies with the
safety objectives, either through trustworthy (e.g. accredited) tests or
through other evidence (e.g. a comprehensive safety analysis of the
product’s design).  Under EU law, this is referred to as “internal
production control”.  The more widely used term is Supplier’s
Declaration of Conformity (SDoC).  There is no need for an additional
layer of recognition of test laboratories on top of the already existing
accreditation mechanisms.

The EC’s goals for the meeting were not only to exchange factual
information about the two systems, but to have OSHA: 1) consider the
impact of EU and U.S. regulations on the broader context of
international trade; and 2) look towards the removal of barriers to
transatlantic commerce that are caused by duplication of procedures and
foster economic integration by reforming regulations and eliminating
differences between the two systems.

The EC raised the issue of proportionality.  In the EU, type approval is
only used in areas, where without such approval the risks to consumers
and workers would be high and liability and consumer protection
legislation would not be a sufficient deterrent for manufacturers to
place unsafe products on the market.  The safety record of electrical
(including electronic and ICT products) is however such that risks to
users are low.  A type approval regime therefore does not provide added
value in terms of increased user safety as is demonstrated by the fact
that in the EU a very high level of safety has been reached.  Electrical
safety is not an issue in the EU, which is confirmed by statistics.  The
US cannot demonstrate that its system performs any better than the EU
system.  Especially ICT and other electronic products have a very high
safety record.  Based on a 30 year long experience they conclude that an
SDoC system achieves the same level of safety but with less red tape and
costs for manufacturers than a third-party system.

On a voluntary basis European manufacturers use third-party testing
where such is necessary to demonstrate compliance, notably in relation
to product liability.  A healthy certification industry has continued to
flourish.  In the absence of internal expertise, small manufacturers
tend to outsource testing.  Voluntary 3rd party schemes like the German
GS scheme exist.

Market Access in the European Union: the Low Voltage and R&TTE
Directives

The EC sees the dialogue with OSHA in an international context.  The EU
and U.S. are the two most important trading blocs in the world.
Regulatory convergence on certification between the two blocs would set
a benchmark against which regulations from 3rd countries, notably China
could be evaluated.  EU and US (and 3rd country) industries are being
faced with a growing amount of technology regulation that causes
unnecessary trade costs.  They call for the establishment of regulatory
environments implementing, wherever possible the "one requirement, one
test, acceptance everywhere" paradigm.  Trade costs are caused by lack
of commonality in regulation.  The EC wants to enter in dialogue with
OSHA in order to converge approaches.  It asks the US to rethink its
system in order to address this matter.

The EC is not arguing that the US system does not fulfill its purpose.
It is however disproportionate and trade unfriendly.  From its
experience it concludes that obligatory third-party approval of these
products including production control is an unnecessary layer for
conformity assessment that can be eliminated without affecting consumer
or workers safety.  In response to a concern of DOL that SDoC could
require more government resources for enforcement, the EC indicated that
in their experience on balance the benefits of SDoC (shorter time to
market, lower certification costs, maintenance of safety levels,
reduction of trade barriers) outweighed the costs (reorientation of
enforcement from CABs to government bodies, transition).  An important
issue to address is the financing of enforcement.  A correctly designed
SDoC system should however not require substantial surveillance
activity.  If that were the case, SDoC would not have been justified.

The trend in the EU towards SDoC derived from the need to establish the
internal market.  The Low Voltage Directive (LVD) which was adopted in
1973 and now covers 2 million products/year was a precursor for many
other Directives.  The EC reported that only a very small percentage of
products regulated by the LVD are reported to have problems with
compliance.  A few of these have led to recalls to withdraw them from
the market.  The EC however observes that recalls are happening in any
regulatory system, including the US NRTL and other regimes.

The LVD covers all electrical equipment between 50 and 1000 volts (AC)
and 75 and 1500 volts (DC).  The decision of where to set these limits
was policy-based.  The lower limits were meant to exclude the telecom
industry, whose equipment operates at 48 volts and below, and the upper
limits were meant to exclude the power industry, whose equipment
operates above 1000 volts.  The statistics show that LVD-covered
products show a very high level of compliance.  The risk of consumers
getting into touch with dangerous products is low.

When the LVD was issued, there were only 6 Member States in the EU.  It
was fully implemented by 1973 and was meant to promote the free movement
of goods across the EU.  The Member States cannot add requirements to
those set by the Directive.  They can however regulated public interest
requirements, that would not be safety related.

In the EU electrocutions have become rare and are in the vast majority
of cases due to product misuse or carelessness, not product design.  The
low number confirms that the SDoC system is performing well at ensuring
a high level of safety.  Within the EU incident statistics are collected
nationally and these are coherent in this respect.  Less than 2% of
post-market surveillance actions relate to electrical and ICT equipment.
 No deaths have been recorded over the past 10 years from the
non-compliance of such equipment with one exception of gross neglect
that would have happened in any regulatory system.  Highest levels of
non-compliance have been reported on Christmas lights and kitchen
appliances, where preemptive measures have been taken.

The EC discussed its “New Approach” on technical regulation and
standardization, which was a means to support a political decision that
all of Europe would operate as a single market.  This decision was made
in 1985, to be in effect by 1992.  Most EU product Directives are
following the principles of the New Approach.  The Directives are
binding upon Member States and have to be transposed in national law.
If the Member States do not implement or do not properly implement the
Directive, they have to accept products complying with the Directive.
The Directives are adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European
Parliament, and name objectives rather than technical specifications.

The translation of the objectives to technical specifications has been
delegated to the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs).  These
are private-sector bodies.  Standardisation is mainly financed by the
private sector but the organisations receive subsidies from public
authorities to maintain their infrastructure.  This is similar to ANSI
(American National Standards Institute).  In certifying a product, a
manufacturer using use either the EU harmonized standard or other
methods to comply with the Directive.  If a manufacturer complies with
the harmonized standards, it is presumed to have complied with the
Directive.  Otherwise, the manufacturer has the burden, if challenged
during a post-market inspection, to prove that he has met the
requirements of the Directive.  In cases where the manufacturer cannot
be found, the burden passes to the importer, who can be liable for
penalties such as fines.  Fines are levied by the Member States, and are
not harmonised, meaning that different Member States have different fine
amounts.

The EU has a policy to ensure that its standards align with
international standards.  Eighty percent of Europe’s standards in the
electrical sector are identical with standards.  Through agreements of
European Standardisation Organisations there is parallel voting of
international and European standards.  In the area of plugs and sockets
some national "A-deviations" remain for historical reasons.  This is an
area, where there is no full harmonisation as it would be overcostly to
harmonise in this field.

There are different approaches to conformity assessment and what is
required for a product to qualify for using the CE mark.  Products in
Module A require only internal control of production.  This is the SDoC
system.  There are also Modules B through H, with the products in Module
H requiring “full quality assurance.”  Products like medical devices
and elevators require generally 3rd party involvement.  Market
surveillance is necessary in each module.  Where there is an ex ante
control of the product there is in general also a production control
procedure, either through factory visits or sampling..  There are
different emphases on post-market surveillance for different modules.
For products in Module A, which are considered low-risk it is deemed
that production controls are unnecessary and that it is sufficient to
control the market through post-market surveillance.  This has proven to
be correct for electrical and especially electronic and ICT products.

The EU system of post-market surveillance continues to be under is the
responsibility of the Member States.  The EU observed differences in the
level of enforcement effort and funding between Member States and
recently agreed minimum standards that have to be achieved.
Surveillance can involve a review of the technical documentation for the
product, or sending the product to a lab for testing to see if the
product is clearly safe or unsafe.  If those results show that the
product is non-compliant, the manufacturer may have to pay the testing
costs.  Non-compliant does not imply that there would be an immediate
risk for consumers.  If the product does not achieve a high level of
safety, the country may bar its sale, following which an EU concertation
takes place to assert, whether the product should be barred from the EU
market.  For products posing immediate safety risks the EU has a rapid
alert system (RAPEX)..  This system is however increasingly also used
for communicating non-compliant products.  Another notification system,
called ICSMS has this purpose but is not used by all Member States.  Its
purpose is to exchange information on non-compliant products.  Aim of
future legislation is to bring more harmonization into the system.

Under the LVD, a manufacturer is responsible for maintaining full
technical files of his products at least 10 years after the product is
put on the market.  Those files include test results, product design
documentation, and the standards that were applied in designing the
product.

The CE mark means that a product complies with the terms of the
applicable product Directive and not that it conforms to any particular
EU safety standard.  The mark will be legally protected, which will
facilitate action against illegal affixing of the mark.  The CE mark is
young and replaced many national markings.  Consumer awareness and
confidence took a period to develop, is still growing and is at a
satisfactory level.

Given the lack of harmonization of methods to collect statistics on
electrical accidents, any comparison of statistics between the US and
the EU, or even between Member States within the EU is difficult.
Statistics that were gathered for  the United States, Germany, and
Finland showed however that the number of accidents decreased steadily
for all three countries and were at a comparable level.  A sharp drop
was visible since the 70's, when both the OSHA NRTL system and the LVD
came into force.  This can be attributed to the progress of the state of
the art of the electrical and electronic industries, which is a further
argument in favor of a rule change.

The EC reminded OSHA of the calls from both the EU and US industries to
render market access regimes trade friendly. Barriers to trade caused by
divergent regulatory systems should be mitigated by either regulatory
convergence, deregulation or Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA).
Convergence involves regional agreements to harmonize product
requirements and a common conformity assessment regime.  The EU
Directives ensure common regimes with the EU, but are also implemented
in 3rd countries, sometimes through bilateral agreements.  The EU
regretted the fact that OSHA had not honoured the US commitments
deriving from the EU-US MRA.

The EU elaborated on its perception of market access costs for EU
industry to access the US market.  Whilst sizing such costs is a
difficult exercise it had made a rough estimate based on direct
compliance costs + costs caused by delays in time to market.  That
calculation would lead to a figure of $1,3 billion over a 5 year period.
 They invited the US for more data based on their surveillance of the
NRTL program.

IV. Concluding Remarks

All the participants of the meeting agreed that it had been very
productive.  However, due to lack of time, neither side was able to ask
all of its questions.  OSHA and the EC did not set any specific date to
meet again.  OSHA said it would put together a record of this meeting
and share it with the EC for input.  OSHA and the EC would decide what
the next step would be.AGENDA

Meeting date/time:  	Thursday, October 11, 2007, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
EDT

Meeting location: 	Room C5515, Frances Perkins Building, 200
Constitution Ave, N.W. Washington DC

Purpose of meeting:   To accomplish Annex 1 B.f (Initiating an exchange
on conformity assessment procedures for the safety of electrical
equipment.) from the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic
Integration Between the United States of America and the European Union.

General Duration of Agenda Items

10:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.: Opening remarks (including introductions,
Ground Rules)

10:45 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.: OSHA’s topics

12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.: Lunch

12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.: OSHA’s topics (continued)

1:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.: EC’s topics

2:45 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.: Break

3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.: EC’s topics (continued)

4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.: Closing remarks (including conclusions, record
of meeting)

Details of OSHA’s topics

Overview of OSHA’s requirements for approval (i.e., conformity
assessment) of electrical equipment (including general information on
OSHA’s rulemaking process and enforcement of its rules)

Overview of the workings of the OSHA Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL) Program

Questions from OSHA representatives regarding the EC’s July 2007
statement advocating OSHA adoption of SDoC:

Supporting details of EC’s SDoC safety track record

Explanation of EC’s view regarding OSHA requirements as a barrier to
trade

Supporting details for EC’s figure for costs savings for SDoC

Supporting details for EC’s claim of time burden

Information gathered from OSHA’s November 2005 RFI of SDoC

Questions from the European Commission (EC) representatives on OSHA’s
information

Details of EC’s topics

Overview of European Union’s (EU’s) requirements concerning
conformity assessment of electrical equipment

Actual operation of EU’s Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC)
system

Differences between Member States (MS) requirements concerning
conformity assessment of electrical equipment

Description of MS product registration requirements

Description of  MS enforcement activity

Questions from OSHA representatives regarding EC’s information

(

G

Y

|

¬

É

Û

p

q

r

s

w

x

y

z

›

¯

r

s

h®

 h®

摧㞔

h

ༀ炄ᄈ還䃷&葞ࡰ葠摧䨭Iᤀ

&

upplier’s Declaration of Conformity for electrical and ICT
equipment”.  Submitted to Mr. Allan Hubbard, U.S. co-chair of the
Framework Agreement’s Transatlantic Economic Council.

U.S.-EU Framework Agreement

Meeting Between the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
and the European Commission (EC)

October 11, 2007

Summary and Agenda (finalized 8/19/08)

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

2


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 48788]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17529]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1092-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: SandRidge Negotiated Rate to
be effective 6/7/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/14/16.
    Accession Number: 20160714-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1093-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing in CP15-105
(Western Ky Customer Lateral) to be effective 8/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1094-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing in CP15-105-000 to
Submit Neg Rate Agmts to be effective 9/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1095-000.
    Applicants: DBM Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: DBM Negotiated Rate Filing to
be effective 7/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1096-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016-07-15 CP to be
effective 7/15/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/15/16.
    Accession Number: 20160715-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/27/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 18, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-17529 Filed 7-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22302-22305]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0803; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-124-AD;
Amendment 39-16655; AD 2011-08-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes; and
Model A300 B4-600, A300 B4-600R, A300 F4-600R Series Airplanes, and
Model A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called A300-600
Series Airplanes)

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This 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:

    The ball screw nut assemblies of the first 70 Trimmable
Horizontal Stabilizer Actuators (THSA) manufactured by Goodrich were
fitted with an upper attachment gimbal having a thickness of 58 mm
(2.28 in), which is different from the design of the final
production standard. The gimbal installed on the subsequent THSAs
(final production standard) is more robust, having a thickness of
70mm (2.76 in).
    During the fatigue life demonstration of the THSA upper
attachment primary load path elements, only a gimbal having a
thickness of 70mm (2.76 in) was used. Thereafter, no additional
justification work to demonstrate the robustness of the upper
attachment fitted with a gimbal of 58 mm was accomplished. In case
of failure of this gimbal, the THSA upper attachment primary load
path would be lost and the THSA upper attachment secondary load path
would engage.
    Because the upper attachment secondary load path will only
withstand the loads for a limited period of time, the condition
where it would be engaged and not detected could lead to failure of
the secondary load path, which would likely result in loss of
control of the aeroplane.
* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 26, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 August 23, 2010 (75
FR 51698). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    The ball screw nut assemblies of the first 70 Trimmable
Horizontal Stabilizer Actuators (THSA) manufactured by Goodrich were
fitted with an upper attachment gimbal having a thickness of 58 mm
(2.28 in), which is different from the design of the final
production standard. The gimbal installed on the subsequent THSAs
(final production standard) is more robust, having a thickness of
70mm (2.76 in).
    During the fatigue life demonstration of the THSA upper
attachment primary load path elements, only a gimbal having a
thickness of 70mm (2.76 in) was used. Thereafter, no additional
justification work to demonstrate the robustness of the upper
attachment fitted with a gimbal of 58 mm was accomplished.
    In case of failure of this gimbal, the THSA upper attachment
primary load path would be lost and the THSA upper attachment
secondary load path would engage.
    Because the upper attachment secondary load path will only
withstand the loads for a limited period of time, the condition
where it would be engaged and not detected could lead to failure of
the secondary load path, which would likely result in loss of
control of the aeroplane.
    As the affected ball screw nut assemblies (including the gimbal)
could have been moved from one THSA to another during maintenance
operation and because the change from the old design to the final
production standard design is not identified through a dedicated
THSA Part Number, a gimbal with thickness of 58 mm (2.28 in) can be
fitted on any A310 or A300-600 aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires the
identification of the THSA which have a 58 mm (2.28 in) gimbal
installed, repetitive [general visual] inspections to check whether
there is engagement of the secondary load path and, depending on
findings, associated corrective action(s).

Corrective actions include contacting Airbus for repair instructions
and doing the repair. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Add Notation to Tolerance Measurements

    FedEx requested that we add the ``+/-'' notation to the tolerance
measurements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of the proposed NPRM.
    We verified that the NPRM published in the Federal Register
includes those notations, as does this final rule. No change has been
made to the AD in this regard.

Request for Terminating Action

    FedEx requested that we consider terminating the repetitive
inspections if the THSA gimbal is ``thick'' (70mm (2.75 in.) +/-5mm
(0.20 in)). FedEx stated that when they removed ``thin'' (58 mm (2.28
in.)) THSA gimbals from four of their airplanes, they replaced them
with ``thick'' gimbals. FedEx also stated that Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletins A310-27A2104 and A300-27A6067, both Revision 01, both dated
May 12, 2010, do not include a terminating action for the repetitive
inspections when the ``thick'' THSA gimbal is installed.
    We agree that the repetitive inspections need to be terminated when
a ``thick'' THSA gimbal is installed. Paragraph (i) has been added to
this AD accordingly. Also, the Cost of Compliance paragraph has been
updated to include the on-condition cost of replacing the gimbal.

Request for Change of Compliance Time

    FedEx and UPS requested that we change the interval of the
repetitive inspections to 130 flight cycles, 650 flight hours, or 6
months, whichever occurs later. FedEx stated that they are unaware of
any failures of the THSA primary load path on the A300-600, A310-200,
or A310-300 airplanes. UPS stated that they do a detailed visual
inspection of the THSA every 30 months, and have not experienced a
single instance of primary load path failure. FedEx stated that since
the FAA mandates inspections of these THSA on a regular basis, and
FedEx has never experienced a primary load path failure, the compliance
time for the repetitive inspections should be extended.
    We disagree. We are not currently in a position to assess the
robustness of the

primary load path of the THSA fitted with a ``thin'' gimbal. Without
more data on the robustness of the THSA primary load path, we can only
rely on the THSA secondary load path (SLP). Tests of the THSA SLP
demonstrated that an engaged SLP had a low durability. The inspection
interval was determined from the THSA SLP test results. As it was not
possible to determine if the wear rate was mainly driven by the flight
cycles or by the flight hours, it was decided to use a double
compliance time for the inspection threshold and interval. No change
has been made to the AD in this regard. However, operators may request
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD.

Request To Include Latest Revision of Service Information

    UPS requested that we include the latest revision of the service
information in this AD.
    We agree. Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A310-
27A2104 and A300-27A6067, both Revision 02, both including Appendix 01,
both dated October 18, 2010. These service bulletins were revised for
minor changes such as deleting THS zeroing in job set-up and deleting
the THSA functional test in close-up. Changes have been made to
reference Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A310-27A2104 and A300-
27A6067, both Revision 02, both including Appendix 01, both dated
October 18, 2010. Paragraph (j) of this AD has also been revised to
give credit for Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A310-27A2104 and
A300-27A6067, both Revision 01, both dated May 12, 2010.

Request To Exempt Certain THSAs From Inspections

    UPS requested that inspections be exempt on any THSAs outside the
first 70 serial number range provided that the THSAs have not been
repaired, reworked or overhauled. UPS stated that since those were the
oldest THSAs, they most likely have been removed due to the existing
THSA life limit. UPS stated that none of these THSAs were delivered on
UPS airplanes. Additionally, UPS stated that the only way this suspect
gimbal could be on another unit is if it was swapped from one unit to
another in the shop.
    We disagree with excluding certain THSAs from the inspection
required in this AD. It is essential that all the fleet is inspected.
Airbus could not determine precisely that the affected THSAs were
conclusively on the first 70 airplanes manufactured, and it is likely
that additional THSAs may have the same configuration. Also, once in
service, some THSAs may have been swapped from one airplane to another
and reliable documentation for the equipment swapping is not always
available. No change has been made to the AD in this regard.

Request To Re-Identify Compliant THSAs

    UPS requested a requirement to re-identify the compliant THSAs. UPS
stated that without the requested requirement it is difficult to ensure
continued compliance, especially dealing with spares, loans, or even
new purchases.
    We disagree. Although there is presently no requirement to re-
identify the compliant THSAs, compliance is maintained by the warning
introduced in the aircraft maintenance manual. The warning states that
``before installation of the THS Actuator, make sure that the gimbal is
not 58mm +/-5mm.'' No change has been made to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 170 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 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
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $28,900, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 60 work-hours and require parts costing $50,000, for a cost
of $55,100 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 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 the NPRM, 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.

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 AD:

2011-08-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-16655. Docket No. FAA-2010-0803;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-124-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 26,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620,
B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R airplanes; Model A300
C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -
304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category,
all certified models, all manufacturer serial numbers.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The ball screw nut assemblies of the first 70 Trimmable
Horizontal Stabilizer Actuators (THSA) manufactured by Goodrich were
fitted with an upper attachment gimbal having a thickness of 58 mm
(2.28 in), which is different from the design of the final
production standard. The gimbal installed on the subsequent THSAs
(final production standard) is more robust, having a thickness of
70mm (2.76 in).
    During the fatigue life demonstration of the THSA upper
attachment primary load path elements, only a gimbal having a
thickness of 70mm (2.76 in) was used. Thereafter, no additional
justification work to demonstrate the robustness of the upper
attachment fitted with a gimbal of 58 mm was accomplished.
    In case of failure of this gimbal, the THSA upper attachment
primary load path would be lost and the THSA upper attachment
secondary load path would engage.
    Because the upper attachment secondary load path will only
withstand the loads for a limited period of time, the condition
where it would be engaged and not detected could lead to failure of
the secondary load path, which would likely result in loss of
control of the aeroplane.
* * * * *

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.

Actions

    (g) Within 130 flight cycles or 650 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, measure the
thickness of the THSA upper attachment gimbal, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-27A6067, Revision 02, dated October 18, 2010 (for Model A300-
600 series airplanes); or A310-27A2104, Revision 02, dated October
18, 2010 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
    (1) If, during the measurement required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, the gimbal thickness is 58 mm (2.28 in.) +/- 5 mm (0.20 in.),
before further flight, do a general visual inspection of the THSA
upper attachment to determine if the THSA upper attachment secondary
load path is engaged, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-27A6067,
Revision 02, dated October 18, 2010 (for Model A300-600 series
airplanes); or A310-27A2104, Revision 02, dated October 18, 2010
(for Model A310 series airplanes). Repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 130 flight cycles or 650 flight hours,
whichever occurs first, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-27A6067,
Revision 02, dated October 18, 2010 (for Model A300-600 series
airplanes); or A310-27A2104, Revision 02, dated October 18, 2010
(for Model A310 series airplanes).
    (2) If, during the measurement required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, the gimbal thickness is not 58 mm (2.28 in.) +/- 5 mm (0.20
in.), except for the requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD, no
further action is required of this AD.
    (h) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, the THSA upper attachment secondary load path is found to
be engaged, before further flight, contact Airbus for repair
instructions and do the repair.

Optional Terminating Action

    (i) Replacing the gimbal with a ``thick'' gimbal (70 mm (2.75
in.) +/- 5mm (0.20 in)), in accordance with Goodrich Actuation
Systems Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List,
Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator P/N 47142 Series, Document 27-44-13,
Revision 8, dated December 12, 2008, is a terminating action for the
requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, except as required by
paragraph (l) of this AD.

Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Issue of Service
Bulletin

    (j) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD,
in accordance with the applicable service bulletins specified in
Table 1 of this AD, are considered acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding action specified in this AD.

                    Table 1--Credit Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Airbus Mandatory Service
         Bulletin--                Revision--              Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-27A6067 (for Model A300- Original............  May 6, 2010.
 600 series airplanes).
A300-27A6067 (for Model A300- 01..................  May 12, 2010.
 600 series airplanes).
A310-27A2104 (for Model A310  Original............  May 6, 2010.
 series airplanes).
A310-27A2104 (for Model A310  01..................  May 12, 2010.
 series airplanes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reporting Requirement

    (k) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative)
of the measurement required by paragraph (g) of this AD to Airbus,
as identified in Appendix 01 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-27A6067, Revision 02, dated October 18, 2010 (for Model A300-
600 series airplanes); or A310-27A2104, Revision 02, dated October
18, 2010 (for Model A310 series airplanes); at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD. The report must
include the information specified in Appendix 01 of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-27A6067, Revision 02, dated October 18, 2010
(for Model A300-600 series airplanes); or A310-27A2104, Revision 02,
dated October 18, 2010 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
    (1) If the measurement was done on or after the effective date
of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the measurement was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

Parts Installation

    (l) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install,
on any airplane, a THSA, unless it is in compliance with the
requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: The MCAI does not include a reporting
requirement; however, the service bulletin recommends reporting.
Paragraph (k) of this AD specifies a reporting requirement.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (m) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be e-mailed 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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (n) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0092, dated
May 21, 2010; Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-27A6067,
Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 18, 2010; Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-27A2104, Revision 02, including
Appendix 01, dated October 18, 2010; and Goodrich Actuation Systems
Component Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts List, Horizontal
Stabilizer Actuator, P/N 47142 Series, Document 27-44-13, Revision
8, dated December 12, 2008, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) You must use Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-27A2104,
Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated October 18, 2010; and
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-27A6067, Revision 02,
including Appendix 01, dated October 18, 2010; to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you
accomplish the optional terminating actions specified by this AD,
you must use Goodrich Actuation Systems Component Maintenance Manual
with Illustrated Parts List, Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator, P/N
47142 Series, Document 27-44-13, Revision 8, dated December 12,
2008, to perform those actions unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(The LOEP in Goodrich Actuation Systems Component Maintenance Manual
with Illustrated Parts List, Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator, P/N
47142 Series, Document 27-44-13, Revision 8, dated December 12,
2008, specifies that page 749 is placed after page 748a; the correct
placement of page 749 is between pages 748 and 747a. The LOEP of
this document identifies two pages for the Illustrated Parts List
section; there is only one page for that section (page 1001-1). The
date on page 1014-1 of this document is incorrect; the correct date
is March 6, 1998.)
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) For Goodrich service information identified in this AD,
contact Goodrich Corporation Actuation Systems, Stafford Road,
Fordhouses, Wolverhampton WV10 7EH, England; telephone +44 (0) 1902
624938; fax: +44 (0) 1902 788100; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.
    (4) 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>.
    (5) 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 NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 23, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-8279 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P