[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82307-82310]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0574; Product Identifier 2019-CE-015-AD; Amendment
39-21340; AD 2020-24-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aerostar Aircraft Corporation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Aerostar Aircraft Corporation (Aerostar) Model PA-60-601P (Aerostar
601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar 602P), and PA-60-700P (Aerostar 700P)
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on the elevator
and aileron balance tubes. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the
elevator and aileron balance tubes for corrosion and rust and replacing
the tube. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 22, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 22,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Aerostar Aircraft Corporation, 2265 West Aerostar Way, Hayden
Lake, ID 83835; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
internet: https://aerostaraircraft.com. You may review this referenced
service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816)
329-4148. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0574.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0574; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is 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: David Herron, Aerospace Engineer,
Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:
(206) 231-3544; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Aerostar Model PA-
60-601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar 602P), and PA-60-700P
(Aerostar 700P) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on June 26, 2020 (85 FR 38338). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
corrosion on the elevator and aileron balance tubes, which may be
hidden by rubber boots. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
repetitively inspecting the elevator and aileron balance tubes for
corrosion (pitting and flaking) and rust (discoloration) and replacing
the tube.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to detect corrosion on the elevator and
aileron balance tubes. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in failure of the aileron and elevator balance tubes, jamming of
the aileron and/or elevator balance tubes, and loss of control of the
airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received comments from three
commenters. The commenters were Yankee Aviation Services, Inc. and two
individuals. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw NPRM

    An individual commenter requested that the NPRM be withdrawn. The
commenter stated there is insufficient data supporting the unsafe
condition and questioned the motive for the proposed AD, as Aerostar
would benefit financially from the sale of parts needed to comply with
the proposed requirements. The commenter observed that Aerostar's
service information did not provide details concerning the number,
source, or content of the reported events of corrosion and the degree
to which the unsafe condition is present in the fleet of Aerostar
airplanes. The commenter further stated that the service information
and the traditional diligence of the Aerostar owner community are
sufficient to address the unsafe condition.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA issues an AD after finding that an
unsafe condition exists or is likely to develop in aircraft of a
particular type design. For this AD, the FAA reviewed the reports
received from Aerostar and the effects that failure of these tubes
could have on an airplane. Aerostar initially discovered corrosion on
the elevator and aileron balance tubes while conducting maintenance on
an airplane. This discovery prompted Aerostar to inspect the other four
airplanes in its facility, which resulted in the identification of
three additional incidents of corrosion on elevator and aileron balance
tubes. The FAA's analysis of this data determined an unsafe condition
exists and warrants corrective action through an AD. To the extent
Aerostar has issued service information on this issue, while an
operator may incorporate into its maintenance program the inspections
in the manufacturer's service bulletin, not all operators are required
to do so. In order for these inspections to become mandatory, and to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM, the FAA must issue
an AD.
    The FAA did not change this AD based on this comment.

Request To Remove Requirement To Replace All Tubes

    All three commenters requested that the FAA remove the proposed
requirement to replace the elevator and aileron balance tubes even if
no corrosion and rust is found during the inspection. Two commenters
noted that requiring the replacement of parts found to be airworthy
does not promote safety and instead subjects owners to unnecessary
expenses. Yankee Aviation Services, Inc., stated the new tubes are the
same as those being replaced and do not have corrosion proofing.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA determined that the root cause of the
rust and corrosion on the elevator and aileron balance tubes is likely
a deficient corrosion protection specification in the initial design
and manufacture of these tubes. The commenter is not correct that the
new tubes are the same as those being replaced. The existing balance
tubes are part number (P/N) 26003-003, Revision L or earlier, while the
new replacement balance tubes are P/N 26003-003, Revision M or later,
as specified in the service information. The Revision M and later
balance tubes have been manufactured with corrosion protection (Zinc
Chromate primer) that was not applied on the earlier versions of the
tubes. The FAA did not change this AD based on these comments.

Request To Allow Part Repair Instead of Replacement

    Yankee Aviation Services, Inc., requested the FAA revise the
proposed AD to allow the repair of tubes with rust instead of
replacement. The commenter stated that a tube with light rust and a
wall thickness of 0.049 inch could be repaired by being wire brushed
and painted with an epoxy paint.
    The FAA disagrees. Repairing the tubes without replacement would
not address the root cause of the rust and

corrosion, which the FAA determined is likely a deficient corrosion
protection specification in the initial design and manufacture of these
tubes. The Revision M or later balance tubes have been manufactured
with corrosion protection (Zinc Chromate primer) that was not applied
on the earlier versions of the tubes. The commenter's request would
allow the tubes to remain installed on the airplane without this
additional corrosion protection. The FAA did not change this AD based
on this comment.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    The FAA reviewed Aerostar Service Bulletin SB600-138, dated August
30, 2018. The service bulletin contains procedures for repetitively
inspecting the elevator and aileron balance tubes for corrosion
(pitting and flaking) and rust (discoloration) and replacing the tubes
at a specified time and repetitively if necessary. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    This AD does not require completing the reply card and returning it
to Aerostar as specified in Step 13 of Part II of the service
information.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 404 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect elevator and aileron      1 work-hour x $85   Not Applicable....  $85 per inspection  $34,340 per
 balance tubes.                    per hour = $85                          cycle..             inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
Replace elevator and aileron      8 work-hours x $85  $1,187............  $1,867............  $754,268.
 balance tubes.                    per hour = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that are required based on the results of the repetitive
inspections, assuming separate replacement intervals. The FAA has no
way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace elevator balance tube.................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $594          $1,274
                                                 $680.
Replace aileron balance tube..................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =                594           1,274
                                                 $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2020-24-10 Aerostar Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-21340; Docket
No. FAA-2020-0574; Product Identifier 2019-CE-015-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 22, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Aerostar Aircraft Corporation Model PA-60-
601P (Aerostar 601P), PA-60-602P (Aerostar 602P), and PA-60-700P
(Aerostar 700P) airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27; Flight
Controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion on the elevator and
aileron balance tubes. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect
corrosion on the elevator and aileron balance tubes. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the aileron
and elevator balance tubes, jamming of the aileron and/or elevator
balance tubes, and loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Within 10 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this
AD, inspect the elevator and aileron balance tubes for corrosion
(pitting and flaking) and rust (discoloration) by following steps 1.
through 3. of Part I (Inspection) of the Instructions in Aerostar
Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin SB600-138, dated August 30,
2018 (Aerostar SB600-138). For each tube replaced as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, using a borescope, repeat the inspection
within 10 years after replacing the tube and thereafter as follows:
    (1) At intervals not to exceed 10 years as long as no rust is
found.
    (2) At intervals not to exceed 2 years if only rust is found
(without any signs of corrosion).

(h) Replacements

    At the following compliance times, replace each elevator and
aileron balance tube by following Part II (Replacement) of the
Instructions in Aerostar SB600-138, except you are not required to
report information to the manufacturer:
    (1) Before further flight if corrosion or rust is found (inside
or outside the tubes) during the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) At the next 100-hour inspection or at the next annual
inspection, whichever occurs first, if no corrosion and no rust is
found (inside or outside the tubes) during the initial inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (3) Before further flight if corrosion is found (inside or
outside the tubes) during any repetitive inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact David Herron,
Aerospace Engineer, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 S 216th St, Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Aerostar Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin SB600-138,
dated August 30, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Aerostar Aircraft Corporation, 2265 West Aerostar Way, Hayden Lake,
ID 83835; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet:
https://aerostaraircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 15, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-27894 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57848-57850]
[DOCID:fr11oc07-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28172; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-23-AD;
Amendment 39-15224; AD 2007-21-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF6-
80C2A5F Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GE
CF6-80C2A5F turbofan engines installed on, but not limited to, Airbus
A300F4-605R airplanes. This AD requires removing previous software
versions from the engine electronic control unit (ECU). Engines with
new version software will have increased margin to flameout. This AD
results from reports of engine flameout events during flight, including
reports of events where all engines simultaneously experienced a
flameout or other adverse operation. Although the root cause
investigation is not yet complete, we believe that exposure to ice
crystals during flight is associated with these flameout events. We are
issuing this AD to minimize the potential of an all-engine flameout
event caused by ice accretion and shedding during flight.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD
from General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services,
10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215, telephone (513)
672-8400, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Docket Operations office is located at U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Golinski, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to GE CF6-80C2A5F turbofan
engines installed on Airbus A300 series airplanes. We published the
proposed AD in the Federal Register on June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35366).
That action proposed to require removing previous software versions
from the engine ECU. Engines with new version software will have
increased margin to flameout.

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. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket. The
AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Applicability Clarification

    One commenter, Airbus, points out that CF6-80C2A5F engines are
installed on Airbus A300-600 series airplanes, and not on Airbus A300
series airplanes, as we stated in the proposed AD. We agree that the
applicability needs clarification. However, to be more accurate, we
changed the AD to state that the CF6-80C2A5F engines are installed on,
but not limited to, Airbus A300F4-605R airplanes.

Request To Exclude Airplanes

    Airbus requests that we exclude airplanes that have incorporated
modification number (No.) 13270, from the AD applicability. Airbus did
not provide any technical rationale, information, or explanation
regarding the content of modification No. 13270, or why airplanes with
modification No. 13270 should be excluded from the AD.
    We do not agree. We believe that modification No. 13270 might be an
Airbus design change for removing previous versions of software from
engines and incorporating new software. We state in the AD that the
actions are required unless previously done. Airbus airplanes that have
previously incorporated the actions of this AD by following the GE
Service Bulletin, or any other document, such as Airbus modification
No. 13270, have satisfied the requirements of this AD, and no

further action is required. We did not change the AD.

Request To Add Airbus Service Bulletin Reference

    Airbus requests that we add a reference to Airbus Service Bulletin
No. A300-73-6032, dated May 23, 2007 as another source of information
on the subject. Airbus provided no explanation for adding the
reference.
    We do not agree. The AD requirements are for the GE CF6-80C2A5F
turbofan engine, and not the airplane. Airbus did not send us a copy of
their Service Bulletin, so we do not know the contents of it. We did
not change the AD.

Update of Service Bulletin Reference

    In the related material paragraph, the proposed AD referenced GE
software upgrade Service Bulletin No. CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0352, dated
February 7, 2007. GE has since revised that Service Bulletin and we
updated the reference to Service Bulletin No. CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0352,
Revision 1, dated September 12, 2007, in that paragraph.

Request for Additional Information

    Airbus requests that we provide additional information to them on
the number of engine flameout reports defined in the proposed AD.
    We do not agree. GE has stated that they will continue to
periodically update the airplane manufacturers on the root cause
investigation and any revenue service flameout events. We did not
change the AD.

Request for Differences Between GE Service Bulletin and AD To Be
Reconciled

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines states that the proposed AD statements
regarding prohibition of installing ECUs with pre GE Service Bulletin
No. 73-0352 software after 24 months of AD effective date, is different
from the GE Service Bulletin requirement. The commenter requests that
differences between the Service Bulletin and the AD be reconciled.
    We do not agree. Both the AD and Service Bulletin compliance
program identify 24 months as the calendar time cap for incorporating
the software change. The AD requires that the new software be installed
after 24 months. The Service Bulletin does not provide this statement
but recommends the actions of the Service Bulletin be done within 24
months of the original issue date of the SB. We believe the intent of
the AD and SB are the same, and that the AD program is appropriate for
balancing the actions to address the unsafe condition and impact to the
fleet. We did not change the AD.

Proposed AD Allows for No Exemptions

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines states that, unlike AD 2007-12-07 (Boeing
747 and 767 ECU fleet) the proposed AD allows for no exemptions. The
commenter requests that we allow for exemptions, to make the AD in line
with other ADs for CF6-80C2 engine applications.
    We do not agree. The AD actions for AD 2007-12-07 were developed
specifically for the affected fleet of CF6-80C2 engines installed on
Boeing 747 and 767 airplanes. That action considers the number of
affected engines, available resources, risk of unsafe condition, and
other factors. The actions identified in this AD are specific to the
CF6-80C2 engines installed on Airbus A300F4-605R airplanes, and are
appropriate for balancing the actions needed to address the unsafe
condition and impact to the fleet. We did not change the AD.

Request To Rewrite All of the CF6-80 Ice Accretion ADs

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines requests that we rewrite all of the
compliance requirements and determination definitions for all of the
CF6-80 ice accretion ADs, to make them identical. The commenter did not
provide any justification for this change.
    We do not agree. We developed the AD compliance programs for the
icing inclement weather threat for the various fleets of CF6-80C2 and
CF6-80E1 engines. These AD programs are different relative to
corrective actions, due to several factors, including risk of unsafe
condition, fleet size, and available resources. We believe having a
tailored compliance plan for each population of CF6 engine provides the
best approach of mitigating the risk of an unsafe condition and
minimizing the impact to the respective fleet. We did not change the
AD.

Conclusion

    We have carefully 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 have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 81 CF6-80C2A5F turbofan
engines installed on Airbus A300F4-605R airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate it will take about 3.5 work-hours per ECU to perform the
actions. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost to U.S. operators to be $22,680. Our cost
estimate is exclusive of warranty coverage.

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 have 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 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); 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration 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:

2007-21-06 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-15224. Docket No.
FAA-2007-28172; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-23-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
15, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF6-80C2A5F
turbofan engines, installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A300F4-
605R airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of engine flameout events
during flight, including reports of events where all engines
simultaneously experienced a flameout or other adverse operation. We
are issuing this AD to minimize the potential of an all-engine
flameout event, due to ice accretion and shedding during flight.
Exposure to ice crystals during flight is believed to be associated
with these flameout events.

Compliance

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

Interim Action

    (f) These actions are interim actions due to the on-going
investigation, and we may take further rulemaking actions in the
future based on the results of the investigation and field
experience.

Engine ECU Software Removal

    (g) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, remove
software version 8.4.E or older versions, from the engine ECUs, part
numbers 1797M63P01, 1797M63P02, 1797M63P03, 1797M63P04, 1797M63P05,
1820M99P01, 1820M99P02, 1820M99P03, 1820M99P04, and 1820M99P05.

Previous Software Versions of ECU Software

    (h) You may use an ECU installed on an engine with a software
version of 8.4.E or older for no longer than 24 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (i) Once software version 8.4.E or older has been removed and
new FAA-approved software version is installed in an ECU, reverting
to version 8.4.E or older of ECU software in that ECU is prohibited.
    (j) After 24 months from the effective date of this AD, use of
an ECU with a software version of 8.4.E or older is prohibited.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (k) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Special Flight Permits

    (l) Special flight permits are not authorized.

Related Information

    (m) Information on removing ECU software and installing new
software, which provides increased margin to flameout, can be found
in GE Service Bulletin No. CF6-80C2 S/B 73-0352, Revision 1, dated
September 12, 2007.
    (n) Contact John Golinski, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax: (781) 238-

7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 4, 2007.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-20036 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30352-30354]
[DOCID:fr27my08-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0184; FRL-8571-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory for the Juniata County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a
SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004
designations, as well as a 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata
County Area. EPA is proposing approval of the maintenance plan and the
2002 base-year inventory in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0184 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0097, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0184. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes 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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.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 http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public 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 electronic docket are listed in the

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468,
400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 17, 2007, PADEP formally
submitted for approval, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, a SIP
revision for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Juniata County Area.

I. Background

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit to EPA
plans to maintain the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. EPA interprets this
provision to require that areas that were maintenance areas for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, but attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submit a
plan to demonstrate the continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The
purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements in
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and to assist the states in the
development of a SIP. The components from EPA's guidance include:
    (1) An attainment emissions inventory, which is based on actual
``typical summer day'' emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for a 10-year maintenance period,
from a base-year chosen by the state; (2) a maintenance demonstration,
which demonstrates how the area will remain in compliance with the 8-
hour ozone standard for a period of 10 years following the effective
date of designation unclassifiable/attainment (June 15, 2004); (3) an
ambient air monitoring network, which will be in continuous operation
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone standard; (4) a contingency plan that will ensure that in the
event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, measures will be
implemented as promptly as possible; (5) a verification of continued
attainment, indicating how the state intends on tracking the progress
of the maintenance plan.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has requested approval of its 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the
Juniata County Area. The PADEP 8-hour ozone maintenance plan addresses
the five components of EPA's May 20, 2005 guidance, which pertains to
the maintenance requirements in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
    Attainment Emission Inventory: An attainment emissions inventory
includes emissions during the time period associated with the
monitoring data showing attainment. PADEP has provided an emissions
inventory for VOCs and NOX, using 2002 as the base-year from
which to project emissions. The 2002 inventory is consistent with EPA
guidance, is based on actual ``typical summer day'' emissions of VOCs
and NOX, and consists of a list of sources and their
associated emissions. PADEP prepared comprehensive VOCs and
NOX emissions inventories for the Juniata County Area. In
the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made
sources of ozone precursors, VOCs and NOX (e.g.,
``stationary sources,'' ``stationary area sources,'' ``highway
vehicles,'' and ``nonroad sources'').
    Pennsylvania projected emissions for beyond 10 years from the
effective date of the April 30, 2004 designations for the 8-hour ozone
standard. PADEP has developed an emissions inventory for ozone
precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018. Tables 1 and 2 show the
VOCs and NOX emissions reduction summary for 2002, 2009, and
2018.

                              Table 1.--VOC Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Major source category                            2002            2009            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources........................................            0.68            0.67            0.90
Stationary Area Sources.........................................            1.48            1.32            1.32
Highway Vehicles................................................            1.92            1.04            0.55
Nonroad Sources.................................................            0.90            0.74            0.61
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................            4.98            3.77            3.38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 2.--NOX Emissions Summary: 2002, 2009 and 2018
                                              [Tons per summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Major source category                            2002            2009            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources........................................            0.54            0.56            0.61
Stationary Area Sources.........................................            0.14            0.16            0.16
Highway Vehicles................................................            3.15            1.72            0.68
Nonroad Sources.................................................            2.88            2.22            1.78
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................            6.71            4.66            3.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the VOCs and
NOX emissions in the Juniata County Area will improve due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, federal measures, and other state-adopted
measures.
    Maintenance demonstration: As Tables 1 and 2 indicate, the Juniata
County Attainment Area plan shows maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by demonstrating that future emissions of VOCs and NOX
remain at or below the 2002 base-year emissions levels through the year
2018.
    Based upon the comparison of the projected emissions and the 2002
base-year inventory emissions, along federal and state measures, EPA
concludes that PADEP successfully demonstrates that the 8-hour ozone
standard will be maintained in the Juniata County Area. Further details
of Juniata County Attainment Area's 8-hour ozone maintenance
demonstration can be found in a Technical Support Document (TSD)
prepared for this rulemaking.
    Ambient Air Quality Monitoring: With regard to the ambient air
monitoring component of the maintenance plan, Pennsylvania commits to
continue operating its current air quality monitoring stations in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the
area, with no reductions in the number of sites from those in the
existing network unless pre-approved by EPA.
    Contingency Plan: Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the
state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation
of a NAAQS is promptly corrected. The purpose of the contingency plan
is to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to
assure continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan should identify the events that would
``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the measure(s).
    Since the Juniata County Area does not have a monitor, contingency
measures will be considered if for two consecutive years the fourth
highest 8-hour ozone concentrations at the design monitor for the
Harrisburg Area are above 84 parts per billion (ppb). If this trigger
point occurs, PADEP will evaluate whether additional local emission
control measures should be implemented in Juniata County in order to
prevent a violation of the air quality standard. PADEP will analyze the
conditions leading to the excessive ozone levels and evaluate what
measures might be most effective in correcting the excessive ozone
levels. PADEP will also analyze the potential emissions effect of
federal, state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet
implemented at the time the excessive ozone levels occurred. PADEP will
then begin the process of implementing the contingency measures
outlined in their maintenance plan.
    Verification of continued attainment: PADEP will track the
attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Juniata County by
reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the Harrisburg Area and
emissions data during the maintenance period. An annual evaluation of
vehicle miles traveled and emissions reported from stationary sources
will be performed and compared to the assumptions about the factors
used in the maintenance plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic
(every three years) emission inventories prepared under EPA's
Consolidated Emission Reporting Regulation (40 CFR part 51, Subpart A)
for any unanticipated increases. Based on these evaluations, PADEP will
consider whether any further emission control measures should be
implemented.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-
year inventory for the Juniata County Area, submitted on December 17,
2007, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is proposing to approve
the maintenance plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata
County Area because it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. These comments will be considered before taking final
action.

IV. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule to approve the maintenance plan and
the 2002 base-year inventory for the Juniata County Area in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: May 14, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
 [FR Doc. E8-11735 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 136)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41373-41376]
[DOCID:fr16jy10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0621]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Port Huron to
Mackinac Island Sail Race

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for
the annual Port Huron to Mackinac Island Sail Race. This action is
necessary to safely control vessel movements in the vicinity of the
race starting point and provide for the safety of the general boating
public and commercial shipping. During this period, no person or vessel
may enter the regulated area without the permission of the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 17,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-XXXX and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting

USCG-2010-XXXX in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking
on the item in the Docket ID column. They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Mr. Frank Jennings, Jr., Auxiliary and
Boating Safety Branch, Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East 9th
Street, Cleveland, OH, via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the special local regulation
pertaining to this annual race was previously published in the Code of
Federal Regulations. The special local regulation was inadvertently
removed during the most recent revision to 33 CFR 100.901. Based on the
hazards associated with marine regattas within Port Huron and the short
amount of time until the event, delaying publication of this regulation
would be contrary to the public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. These special local regulations
were inadvertently removed during the most recent revision to 33 CFR
100.901. Because this is an annual race, held in the same location,
local maritime interests are already familiar with the provisions of
these regulations. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public
interest of ensuring the safety of spectators and vessels during this
operation and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of
life or property.

Background and Purpose

    Special local regulations are necessary to safely control vessel
movements in the vicinity of the race starting point and provide for
the safety of the general boating public and commercial shipping. The
Captain of the Port Sector Detroit has determined that the start of the
Port Huron to Mackinac Island Sail Race does pose significant risks to
public safety and property. The likely combination of congested
waterways, vessels engaged in a regatta, and fast currents could easily
result in serious injuries or fatalities.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the
annual Port Huron to Mackinac Sail Race from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. on
July 17, 2010. The special local regulations apply to the waters of the
Black River, St. Clair River and lower Lake Huron from:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42[deg]58.8[min] N                          082[deg]26[min] W, to
42[deg]58.4[min] N                          082[deg]24.8[min] W, thence
                                             northward along the
                                             International Boundary to
43[deg]02.8[min] N                          082[deg]23.8[min] W, to
43[deg]02.8[min] N                          082[deg]26.8[min] W, thence
                                             southward along the U.S.
                                             shoreline to
42[deg]58.9[min] N                          082[deg]26[min] W, thence to
42[deg]58.8[min] N                          082[deg] 26[min] W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DATUM: NAD 83].

    In order to ensure the safety of spectators and participating
vessels, the special local regulations will be in effect for the day of
the start of the event. The Coast Guard will patrol the race area under
the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM).
Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with
prior approval of the PATCOM and when so directed by that officer. The
PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) by the call sign
``Coast Guard Patrol Commander.'' Vessels will be operated at a no wake
speed to reduce the wake to a minimum, and in a manner which will not
endanger participants in the event or any other craft. The rules
contained in the above two sentences shall not apply to participants in
the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of
their assigned duties.
    In the event these special local regulations affect shipping,
commercial vessels may request permission from the PATCOM to transit
the area of the event by hailing call sign ``Coast Guard Patrol
Commander'' on Channel 16 (156.8 MHZ).

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Special local regulations pertaining to this annual race were
previously published in the Code of Federal Regulations. These special
local regulations were inadvertently removed by the U.S. Coast Guard
during the most recent revision to 33 CFR 100.901. Because this race is
held annually in the same location, local maritime interests are
already familiar with the provisions of this regulation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Black River, St. Clair River and
lower Lake Huron from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. July 17, 2010.
    These special local regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only 7 hours on a

weekend when the majority of vessel traffic transiting the area is
recreational. Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the area
of the race start with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol
commander. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue
maritime advisories widely to users of the river.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights
protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this
Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian Tribes
that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or options
for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
safety zone and is therefore categorically excluded under paragraph
34(g) of the Instruction.
    A final environmental analysis check list and categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves the enforcement of
special local regulations, pursuant to 33 CFR

100, for the annual Port Huron to Mackinac Island Sail Race, July 17,
2010 at 9 a.m. to July 17, 2010 at 4 p.m. This action is necessary to
safely control vessel movements in the vicinity of the start of the
race and provide for the safety of the general boating public and
commercial shipping. Regulations will be in effect for seven hours on
the day the event starts. The Coast Guard will patrol the race area
under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  100.T09-0659 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T09-0659  Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Port
Huron to Mackinac Island Sail Race.

    (a) Location. The special local regulations apply to the waters of
the Black River, St. Clair River and lower Lake Huron from:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Latitude                                                                    Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42[deg]58.8[min] N.........................  082[deg]26[min] W, to
42[deg]58.4[min] N.........................  082[deg]24.8[min] W, thence northward along the International Boundary to
43[deg]02.8[min] N.........................  082[deg]23.8[min] W, to
43[deg]02.8[min] N.........................  082[deg]26.8[min] W, thence southward along the U.S. shoreline to
42[deg]58.9[min] N.........................  082[deg]26[min] W, thence to
42[deg]58.8[min] N.........................  082[deg] 26[min] W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DATUM: NAD 83].

    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
on July 17, 2010.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 100.35 of this part, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta
area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander
(PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the
call sign ``Coast Guard Patrol Commander.'' Vessels desiring to transit
the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the PATCOM and
when so directed by that officer.
    (2) Vessels will be operated at a no wake speed to reduce the wake
to a minimum, and in a manner which will not endanger participants in
the event or any other craft. The rules in this subparagraph shall not
apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating
in the performance of their assigned duties.
    (3) The Patrol Commander may direct the anchoring, mooring or
movement of any boat or vessel within the regatta area. A succession of
sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the
area under the direction of the U.S. Coast Guard PATCOM shall serve as
a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with
the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from
the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (4) The PATCOM may establish vessel size and speed limitations and
operating conditions. The PATCOM may restrict vessel operation within
the regatta area to vessels having particular operating
characteristics. The PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the
operation of vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the
protection of life and property.

    Dated: July 2, 2010.
M.N. Parks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-17339 Filed 7-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P