[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60027-60028]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25276]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1496; Special Conditions No. 25-601-SC]

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Airplanes, Side-
Stick Controllers; Controllability and Maneuverability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Model
GVII-G500 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design
feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design
feature is side-stick controllers, instead of conventional-control
wheel-and-column design, for pitch and roll control. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective November 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (425) 227-
1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a
type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model
GVII-G500 will be a large-cabin business jet with seating for 19
passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets
and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted
Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines. The flight-control system is a three-
axis, fly-by-wire (FBW) system incorporating active control/coupled
side sticks.
    The Model GVII-G500 will have a wingspan of approximately 87 ft.
and a length of just over 91 ft. Maximum takeoff weight will be
approximately 76,850 lbs and maximum takeoff thrust will be
approximately 15,135 lbs. Maximum range will be approximately 5,000 nm
and maximum operating altitude will be 51,000 ft.
    The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate a FBW flight-control
system, through side-stick controllers, for pitch and roll control.
Regulatory requirements, such as the pilot-control forces prescribed in
the referenced regulations, are not applicable for the side-stick
controller design. In addition, pilot-control authority may be
uncertain because the side-stick controllers are not mechanically
interconnected to flight controls as are conventional wheel-and-column
controls.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17,
Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the
applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, effective February 1, 1965,
including Amendments 25-1 through 25-137; 14 CFR part 34, as amended by
Amendments 34-1 through the most current amendment at time of design
approval; and 14 CFR part 36, Amendment 36-29.
    In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations,
special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these
special conditions. Type Certificate no. TC-01-2010-0024 will be
updated to include a complete description of the certification basis
for this airplane model.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500
airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
    Side-stick controllers incorporating fly-by-wire technology for
pitch and roll control, in place of conventional wheel-and-column
controls.

Discussion

    These special conditions for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500
airplane address the unique features of the side-stick controllers. The
Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate side-stick controllers
controlling a FBW flight-control system. The FBW control laws are
designed to provide conventional flying qualities such as positive
static longitudinal and lateral stability as prescribed in part 25,
subpart B. However, the pilot-control forces prescribed in the
referenced regulations are not applicable for the side-stick controller
design.
    Because current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use
of side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control, the unique
features of the side stick therefore must be demonstrated, through
flight and simulator tests, to have suitable handling and control
characteristics when considering the following:
     The handling-qualities tasks and requirements of the
Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 Special Conditions and other 14 CFR part 25
requirements for stability, control, and maneuverability, including the
effects of turbulence.

     General ergonomics: Armrest comfort and support, local
freedom of movement, displacement-angle suitability, and axis harmony.
     Inadvertent pilot input in turbulence.
     Inadvertent pitch and roll crosstalk from pilot inputs on
the side-stick controller.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-15-07-SC for the
Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane was published in the Federal
Register on August 18, 2015 [80 FR 49934]. No comments were received,
and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Gulfstream
Model GVII-G500 airplanes. Should Gulfstream apply later for a change
to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions
would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500
airplane, in lieu of Sec. Sec.  25.143(d), 25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b),
25.173(c), 25.175(b), and 25.175(d):
    Pilot strength: In lieu of the control-force limits shown in Sec.
25.143(d) for pitch and roll, and in lieu of specific pitch-force
requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.143(i)(2), 25.145(b), 25.173(c),
25.175(b), and 25.175(d), Gulfstream must show that the temporary and
maximum prolonged-force levels for the side-stick controllers are
suitable for all expected operating conditions and configurations,
whether normal or non-normal.
    Pilot-control authority: The electronic side-stick-controller
coupling design must provide for corrective and overriding control
inputs by either pilot with no unsafe characteristics. Annunciation of
the controller status must be provided, and must not be confusing to
the flightcrew.
    Pilot control: Gulfstream must show by flight tests that the use of
side-stick controllers does not produce unsuitable pilot-in-the-loop
control characteristics when considering precision path control and
tasks, and turbulence. In addition, pitch and roll control force and
displacement sensitivity must be compatible, so that normal pilot
inputs on one control axis will not cause significant unintentional
inputs (crossover) on the other.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, September 25, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-25276 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33220]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0132; FRL-9161-1]

Extension of Public Comment Period for Proposed Rule on the
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunction
Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a 14-day extension of the public comment
period for the proposed ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; Texas; Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance,
and Malfunction Activities.'' As initially published in the Federal
Register on May 13, 2010 (75 FR 26892), written comments on the
proposal for rulemaking were to be submitted to EPA on or before June
14, 2010 (a 30-day public comment period). Since publication, EPA has
received requests for additional time to submit comments. Therefore,
the public comment period will now end on June 28, 2010. This extension
is time-limited because the rule has to be finalized by October 31,
2010 under the terms of a settlement agreement.

DATES: The public comment period for this proposed rule is extended
until June 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(214) 665-7263, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Extension of Public Comment Period

    The proposed rule was signed on May 5, 2010, and published in the
Federal Register on May 13, 2010 (75 FR 26892). The EPA has received
requests for additional time to comment on the proposal. Since the 30-
day public comment period would have concluded on June 14, 2010, EPA
has decided to extend the comment period until June 28, 2010. This
extension is time-limited because the rule must be finalized by October
31, 2010 under the terms of a settlement agreement.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0132. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your
visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of
documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6
reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Also, the proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on
May 13, 2010 and is available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/
2010-11429.htm.

    Dated: June 3, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-14094 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58499-58502]
[DOCID:fr16oc07-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27925; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-183-AD;
Amendment 39-15232; AD 2007-21-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This AD requires revising the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.
This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer.
We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources
inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors
caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance
actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of
the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 20, 2007.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of November 20,
2007.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the

Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1622; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310
series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
April 20, 2007 (72 FR 19826). That NPRM proposed to require revising
the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

Actions since NPRM Was Issued

    After we issued the NPRM, Airbus published the A310 Fuel
Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11,
2007 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on July 6,
2007) (hereafter referred to as ``Document 95A.1930/05''). In the NPRM,
we referred to Issue 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, dated December 19,
2005, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions proposed in the NPRM. The fuel airworthiness
limitations specified in Issue 2 of Document 95A.1930/05 are the same
as those in Issue 1 of Document 95A.1930/05. Airbus has revised certain
task titles in Section 1 of Issue 2 of Document 95A.1930/05 and has
clarified the applicability and corrected certain airplane maintenance
manual (AMM) references in Section 2 of the document. Therefore, we
have revised this AD by referring to Issue 2 of Document 95A.1930/05 as
the appropriate source of service information.
    After we issued the NPRM, EASA issued airworthiness directive 2007-
0096 R1, dated May 2, 2007, to correct certain compliance times; our
NPRM included the correct compliance times, which we explained as
differences between the NPRM and EASA airworthiness directive 2006-
0202, dated July 11, 2006. The compliance times in this AD already
correspond with the compliance times of EASA airworthiness directive
2007-0096 R1. Therefore, we have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to
refer to EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0096 R1.
    After we issued the NPRM, Airbus published Operator Information
Telex (OIT) SE 999.0079/07, Revision 01, dated August 14, 2007, to
identify the applicable sections of the Airbus A310 AMM necessary for
accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05.
We have added a note to paragraph (f) of this AD to refer to that OIT.

Comments

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

Request To Revise ``Relevant Service Information'' Section

    Airbus requests that we revise the ``Relevant Service Information''
section to state that ``Section 1, `Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,' of
Document 95A.1930/05 describes certain FAL inspections, which are
periodic inspections of certain features for latent failures that could
contribute to a fire.'' In the NPRM, we specified that the latent
failures could contribute to an ignition source. As justification,
Airbus states that not all three tasks identified in Section 1 of
Document 95A.1930/05 contribute to minimizing the risk of an ignition
source: Only Task 3 minimizes the risk of an ignition source, while
Tasks 1 and 2 minimize the occurrence of a combustible environment. We
agree with Airbus's statements. However, we have not revised this AD in
this regard since the ``Relevant Service Information'' section is not
retained in a final rule.

Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition

    Airbus states that it does not agree that there is an unsafe
condition on Model A310 series airplanes, prior to accomplishing the
maintenance/inspection tasks in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05.
Airbus agrees that performing these tasks contributes to minimizing the
risk of either an ignition source (Task 3) or the occurrence of a
combustible environment (Tasks 1 and 2). In regard to the critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs), Airbus states that
no unsafe condition exists at delivery, and that no unsafe condition
will develop provided that operators observe the CDCCLs after delivery.
Airbus further states that the CDCCLs are introduced to reduce the risk
that an operator may inadvertently alter the design or installation,
thus introducing a less safe configuration.
    We infer Airbus would like us to revise the unsafe condition in
this AD to incorporate its comments. We do not agree to revise the
unsafe condition of this AD. Fuel airworthiness limitations (FALs) are
items arising from a systems safety analysis that have been shown to
have failure modes associated with an unsafe condition, as defined in
FAA Memorandum 2003-112-15, ``SFAR 88--Mandatory Action Decision
Criteria,'' dated February 25, 2003. These FALs are identified in
failure conditions for which an unacceptable probability of ignition
risk could exist if specific tasks or practices or both are not
performed in accordance with a manufacturer's requirements. As Airbus
notes, if an operator does not observe the CDCCLs after delivery, then
an unsafe condition could occur. For this reason we must mandate
Document 95A.1930/05 to ensure the CDCCLs are observed. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Requirements of Paragraph (h)

    Airbus requests that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM to state
that operators are required to update their internal procedures and
documentation to ensure appropriate management and control of the
CDCCLs specified in Section 2 of Document 95A.1930/05. Airbus states
that paragraph (h) of the NPRM is unclear about what an operator is
expected to do with the CDCCLs. Airbus further states that paragraph
(h) of the NPRM tells operators to add the CDCCLs to the ALS, but
Airbus states that it has already done so. Airbus also states that the
ALS is part of the type certification (TC) documentation and is not
changed by operators.
    Although we understand Airbus' concern and welcome any feedback
that would improve the readability or usability of an AD, the suggested
language is too vague to be legally enforceable, so we cannot use it in
this AD. We understand that Airbus has revised its airworthiness
limitations document. However, according to 14 CFR 39.7, no person may
operate a product unless the requirements of an applicable AD have been
met. The burden is placed on the operator, not on the manufacturer, to
ensure that the requirements of an AD are met. The requirement, as
stated in the NPRM, is for the operator to revise its copy of the

airworthiness limitations document. This ensures that each affected
operator maintains a current copy of the required airworthiness
limitations.
    Concerning Airbus' statement that paragraph (h) of the NPRM does
not clearly specify what an operator is expected to with the CDCCLs, we
would like to clarify that paragraph (h) requires that affected
operators revise their copies of the airworthiness limitations document
to include the CDCCL requirements. This is the only requirement imposed
under this AD for CDCCLs; once this revision has been accomplished,
compliance with paragraph (h) of this AD has been completed.
Subsequently, 14 CFR 91.403(c) requires an affected operator to comply
with the revised Airworthiness Limitations document. Ensuring that
one's maintenance program and the actions of its maintenance personnel
are in accordance with the Airworthiness Limitations is required, but
not by the AD. According to 14 CFR 91.403(c), no person may operate an
aircraft for which airworthiness limitations have been issued unless
those limitations have been complied with. Therefore, there is no need
to further expand the requirements of the AD beyond that which was
proposed because section 91.403(c) already imposes the appropriate
required action after the airworthiness limitations are revised. We
have not changed this AD in this regard.

Change to Paragraph (f)

    We have also clarified the compliance time in paragraph (f) of this
AD by adding the word ``thereafter'' to more clearly state that * * *
the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter * * *''

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

    This AD affects about 69 airplanes of U.S. registry. The required
actions take about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate
of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
AD for U.S. operators is $11,040, or $160 per airplane.

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 regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2007-21-14 Airbus: Amendment 39-15232. Docket No. FAA-2007-27925;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-183-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective November 20, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections and critical design
configuration control limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with the
operator maintenance documents is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired
in the areas addressed by these inspections and CDCCLs, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the inspections and CDCCLs described
in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR
91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative
method of compliance according to paragraph (j) of this AD. The
request should include a description of changes to the required
inspections and CDCCLs that will preserve the critical ignition
source prevention feature of the affected fuel system.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations,
repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

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.

Revise Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) To Incorporate Fuel
Maintenance and Inspection Tasks

    (f) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5--Fuel Airworthiness Limitations,
dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness
Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007
(approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on July 6,
2007), Section 1, ``Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.'' For all tasks
identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, the initial
compliance times start from the later

of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD,
and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at
the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, except
as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) The effective date of this AD.
    (2) The date of issuance of the original French standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
French export certificate of airworthiness.

    Note 2: Airbus Operator Information Telex SE 999.0079/07,
Revision 01, dated August 14, 2007, identifies the applicable
sections of the Airbus A310 airplane maintenance manual necessary
for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document
95A.1930/05.

Initial Compliance Time for Task 28-18-00-03-1

    (g) For Task 28-18-00-03-1 identified in Section 1 of Document
95A.1930/05, ``Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,'' of Airbus A310 Fuel
Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May
11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007): The initial
compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, Task 28-18-00-03-1 must be
accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of
Document 95A.1930/05.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours.
    (2) Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

Revise ALS To Incorporate CDCCLs

    (h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5--Fuel Airworthiness Limitations,
dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness
Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007
(approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007), Section 2, ``Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations.''

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

    (i) Except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD: After
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (f) and (h) of
this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs
may be used.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Related Information

    (k) EASA airworthiness directive 2007-0096 R1, dated May 2,
2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Airbus A310 ALS Part 5--Fuel Airworthiness
Limitations, dated May 31, 2006; and Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness
Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007; to
perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of these documents in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for a copy of this
service information. You may review copies at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html
.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 5, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-20221 Filed 10-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34907-34908]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11549]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-203, OMB Control No. 3235-0195]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17Ab2-1 and
Form CA-1

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ab2-1 (17 CFR
240.17Ab2-1) and Form CA-1: Registration of Clearing Agencies (17 CFR
249b.200) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.

    Rule 17Ab2-1 and Form CA-1 require clearing agencies to register
with the Commission and to meet certain requirements with regard to,
among other things, the clearing agency's organization, capacities, and
rules. The information is collected from the clearing agency upon the
initial application for registration on Form CA-1. Thereafter,
information is collected by amendment to the initial Form CA-1 when
changes in circumstances that render certain information on Form CA-1
inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete necessitate modification of the
information previously provided to the Commission.
    The Commission uses the information disclosed on Form CA-1 to (i)
determine whether an applicant meets the standards for registration set
forth in Section 17A of the Exchange Act, (ii) enforce compliance with
the Exchange Act's registration requirement, and (iii) provide
information about specific registered clearing agencies for compliance
and investigatory purposes. Without Rule 17Ab2-1, the Commission could
not perform these duties as statutorily required.
    The Commission staff estimates that the average Form CA-1 requires
approximately 340 hours to complete and submit for approval, and that
on average, the Commission receives one application each year. The
Commission staff estimates that completion of an initial Form CA-1 will
result in an internal cost of compliance of approximately $145,360 per
year. The Commission staff estimates that it receives one amendment per
year, and that an amendment requires approximately 60 hours of the
exempt or registered clearing agency's staff time. The Commission staff
estimates that amendment of a filed Form CA-1 will result in an
internal cost of compliance of approximately $28,020 per year.
Therefore, the aggregate hour burden is approximately 400 hours per
year (340 + 60) and the aggregate internal cost of compliance is
approximately $173,380 per year ($145,360 + $28,020).
    The external costs associated with work on Form CA-1 include fees
charged by outside lawyers and accountants to assist the applicant or
registrant to collect and prepare the information sought by the form
(though such consultations are not required by the Commission). The
Commission staff estimates that these external costs are more likely
when novel questions arise under a new application, rather than under
periodic review and amendment. The staff estimates an annual external
cost of 45 hours of an Attorney's time (estimated at $462 per hour) and
10 hours of a Senior Accountant's time (estimated at $241 per hour) for
preparation of the Form CA-1, resulting in an aggregate external cost
of approximately $23,200 per year ($20,790 + $2,410).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
July 31, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: May 25, 2023.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-11549 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/08/2009 02:52 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Stachowicz, Bob"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |12/08/2009 02:39 PM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RE: stationary engine malfunction
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

Hello Melanie,

    I apologize for the length of time that I needed to respond.  As I
indicated in my first acknowledgement, these are not simple issues and there
is no single "correct" answer.  Also, while I have some knowledge of industry
practices in general, I can speak directly only for Dresser-Waukesha.  I will
address each of your four questions:

What are some typical causes of malfunctions in engines (and any associated
engine emission control system)?  Webster's dictionary defines malfunction
simply as "to function imperfectly or badly : fail to operate normally".  The
EPA definition excludes "Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation" and appears to include only something "which causes, or
has the potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard
to be exceeded".  This is a much more narrow and directed definition.  There
are a multitude of potential malfunctions in an engineered product as complex
as a reciprocating, internal combustion engine system that includes the
engine, an electronic control system which may control both the engine and
part - or all - of the aftertreatment system, and the aftertreatment itself.
A malfunction can occur in any of these areas.  Current and proposed emissions
standards are so restrictive that there is almost no allowable variation in
any area in order to continuously comply with the standards -- everything must
function near flawlessly.  Since a modern SI RICE system is so complex,
failure/malfunction of almost any component can affect output emissions levels
although they may not be affected to the point of non-compliance.
    Note that, while I will try to keep the EPA definition of a malfunction in
mind in my responses, many malfunctions that could meet EPA's malfunction
definition can be exacerbated by poor maintenance or careless/improper
operation.  One example of this would be a spark plug that would fail early
under normal operation but will fail even earlier under improper operation.
Would the "in part" phrase in EPA's definition exclude this circumstance from
being considered a "malfunction"?  If so, the EPA definition of malfunction
may be too restrictive from a practical perspective for an engine system
versus other types of stationary sources such as large power plants.  This
sort of circumstance relates to my question to you about how EPA would look at
a malfunction that was colored, in some fashion, by poor maintenance or
careless operation.  Specifically, how are "poor" and "careless"
officially defined and who would make the final determination if the
maintenance was "poor" or the operation was "careless"?
    There are several possible causes of malfunction outside of poor
maintenance or careless/improper operation.  These can include a manufacturing
error such as machining a part outside of blueprint tolerances, a part
inadvertently made of, or including, non-conforming material, statistically
expected random and early failure such as B10 life for bearings or illustrated
by the bell-curve distribution, ambient and operating conditions including a
fuel composition change, human error, and "acts of God".  An example of the
latter may be a nearby lightning strike that directly or indirectly affects
electronic controls such that engine operation continues but in an abnormal
manner.
    Typical gas engine malfunctions originating from any, or other, of the
preceding causes include spark misfire, spark timing shift, engine
backpressure increase or decrease, engine crankcase pressure change, abnormal
coolant temperature, valve train operation out-of-specification, abnormal/high
vibration levels, air/fuel ratio shift, and breakage of virtually any engine
component.
    Some issues that can directly affect emissions may not meet the EPA
definition of "malfunction" but may be considered a "failure" even though that
failure is normal.  "Normal" in this case means very gradual performance
degradation, usually of the aftertreatment, due to length of operating time.
One of the best examples of this is the steady decrease of performance of a
catalyst due to continuous exposure to heat (resulting in slow sintering and
loss of performance), particulate (even the cleanest of engine exhaust streams
contains some particulate from combustion of engine oil which will eventually
mask the active catalyst material), and chemicals (engine exhaust may contain
trace amounts of antifreeze if there is a minor, internal, coolant leak and
all engine oils contain additives which will add known catalyst poisons to the
engine exhaust stream).  While such a failure could be considered "reasonably
preventable" from one viewpoint since the processes are known as well as the
fact that it will happen is known, the way in which these factors combine to
degrade a catalyst can vary the degradation rate significantly with the result
that loss of compliance could be looked at as sudden and infrequent.

What usually happens when these malfunctions occur?  The results of
malfunctions are as varied as the possible malfunctions themselves and will
cover the entire spectrum from no practical effect to significant effect on
either engine performance, engine emissions, or both.
Malfunction of a non-critical component, such as breakage of an air filter
brace, may increase local vibration levels but will have no discernable effect
on engine operation or emissions.  Other malfunctions can have an immediate
and direct effect on engine operation and output emissions.  Examples of the
latter would be a sensor or control wire breaking or shorting due to vibration
or a spark plug failure resulting in a severely misfiring or dead cylinder.
In these latter cases engine emission levels and, of course, engine
performance can change drastically and suddenly.

Does the engine typically shut down automatically, or does it have to be
manually shut down?  This will depend on the exact nature of the failure and
the safety and operational control scheme applied to the engine system.  Most
modern stationary engines have some level of electronic control in addition to
mechanical safety and operational sensors and controls.  The control response
algorithms will determine whether the engine shuts down automatically or is
allowed to operate until a manual shut-down is performed to investigate the
malfunction.  Malfunctions determined by the control algorithms to be critical
will likely result in an automatic shut down to protect the engine or
aftertreatment or both.  See also the following question / response.

Can the engine still continue operating even if it is malfunctioning?
Simplistically, of course the answer is yes.  However, again, reality will
depend on both the specific nature of the malfunction and the specific control
scheme applied to the engine system.  Some malfunctions are considered non-
critical and the engine will be allowed to continue operating.  Note that a
secondary function of a control system/scheme may be to send a signal to a
monitoring station indicating a malfunction has occurred even if the engine is
allowed to continue operation.
Other, more significant, malfunctions may call for an emergency stop to
prevent a possible catastrophic failure.  If the malfunction is serious enough
it may cause the engine to cease operation - sometimes catastrophically -
independent of any control and shutdown scheme.
Usually, significant parameters such as temperatures, pressures, speeds,
vibration, knock, etc are monitored rather than trying to detect malfunctions
themselves as most malfunctions that will affect engine performance and/or
emissions will manifest themselves as a detrimental shift in one or more of
those parameters.  The algorithms programmed into the control scheme will
decide whether to allow continued engine operation, allow operation and send a
warning, or immediately stop engine operation.  Older engines, those with
mechanical/hydraulic control systems, function the same in principle but have
much less response flexibility compared to engines with at least some
electronic control.  In either case, "nuisance" shut-downs -- those not due to
a true malfunction issue -- must be minimized as far as practical without
putting the engine, driven equipment, or operational limits in jeopardy.
Nuisance shut-downs can become very expensive to an owner/operator if allowed
to continue.

    I hope that this adequately addresses your questions.  If I can contribute
anything further please let me know.

Sincerely,
Bob Stachowicz
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Robert Stachowicz, PE | Staff Engineer | Dresser, Inc., Dresser Waukesha
| 1101 West St. Paul Avenue, Waukesha, WI, 53188 |<PHONE_NUMBER> |
262.549.2705 (fax)

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:21 PM
To: Stachowicz, Bob
Subject: stationary engine malfunction

Hi Bob,
Hope you are doing well.  Can you help me with a question about stationary
engine malfunctions?  What are some typical causes of malfunctions in engines
(and any associated engine emission control
system)?   What usually happens when these malfunctions occur?  Does the
engine typically shut down automatically, or does it have to be manually shut
down?  Can the engine still continue operating even if it is malfunctioning?
I'm asking about malfunctions as defined by EPA for the MACT program, the
definition is:

"Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment,
or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner which causes, or has the
potential to cause, the emission limitations in an applicable standard to be
exceeded. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions."

So I'm interested in failures that would not be caused by poor maintenance or
improper operation of the engine, since by the EPA definition, that wouldn't
be considered a malfunction Thanks and have a great Thanksgiving,

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8318-8319]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-92]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53263; File No. SR-Amex-2005-130]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed
Rule Change, and Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to the Specialist
Transaction Fee

February 9, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that on
December 19, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. On February 1,
2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons and to approve the
amended proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1, which replaced the original filing in its
entirety, made technical and clarifying changes to the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to rebate the increase in the Specialist
Transaction Fee that the Amex implemented on October 3, 2005 and which
the Exchange has collected since that time. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at (http://www.amex.com
), the Office of the Secretary, the Amex and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Effective with transactions beginning October 3, 2005, the Exchange
increased the Specialist Transaction Fee from $.00005 to $.00007 of the
total value of a specialist's transactions in equities.\4\ After
further consideration, analysis of the impact of the fee increase and
discussions with its members, the Exchange has determined to rollback
the increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee to $.00005.\5\ The
increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee implemented in October 2005
was part of a number of changes to the Equity Fee Schedule, the purpose
of which was to generate additional revenue for the Exchange and to
create additional incentives for market participants to send order flow
to the Amex. According to the Exchange, for market participants other
than the specialists, the changes in the aggregate contributed to the
increase in revenue for the Exchange. The changes to fees imposed on
the specialists, which also generated an increase in revenue, included
an increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee and the elimination of a
rarely used exemption from the Transaction Fee for trades in paired
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52701 (October 28,
2005), 70 FR 67504 (November 7, 2005) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of SR-Amex 2005-101).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53232 (February 6,
2006) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of SR-Amex-2006-
008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the Specialist Transaction Fee is based
on the dollar value of equity shares executed by the specialist. As a
result, specialists trading high-priced and/or high volume securities
account for a disproportionate amount of the revenue generated by the
fee. The recent increase in the fee exacerbated this result. The
Exchange submits that rolling back the increase will alleviate, in
part, this disproportionate impact on certain specialists.\6\ Although
the rollback of the increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee will
result in a decrease in the additional revenues expected to be
generated by the recent changes to the Equity Fee Schedule, the
Exchange represents that this decrease will not result in an increase
or other revisions to fees charged to other market participants. In a
separate filing submitted pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2), this proposed reduction in the Specialist Transaction Fee
became effective upon filing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 5.
    \7\ See supra note 5. This reduction was effective upon filing
on a prospective basis from February 6, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is now requesting to rebate the increase in the
Specialist Transaction Fee collected since October 3, 2005. Beginning
October 3, 2005, the Exchange billed and collected the increased
Specialist Transaction Fee. Upon approval of this proposal to allow a
refund of the increased portion of the fee collected, the Amex will
issue a credit to the specialists for the amount collected while the
higher fee was in place. Notwithstanding the proposed rebate, the
Exchange believes that the recent changes to the Equity Fee Schedule
continue to be an equitable

allocation of reasonable fees among its members, issuers and other
users of its facilities.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Amex believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular because it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
reimburse a recent fee increase that the Exchange believes
disproportionately impacts some members.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ Amex clarified that although it refers in this sentence to
the elimination of a recent fee increase, this proposal requests
approval to rebate the increased amount of the Specialist
Transaction Fee collected between October 3, 2005 and February 6,
2006. Telephone conversation between Claire McGrath, Senior Vice
President and General Counsel, Amex, and Johnna B. Dumler, Attorney,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on February 9, 2006. In a
separate filing, SR-Amex-2006-008, which became effective upon
filing, the Amex eliminated the increase in the Specialist
Transaction Fee. See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Amex does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change, as amended.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2005-130 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-130. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-Amex-2005-130 and should be submitted on or before March 9,
2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\11\ Specifically, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\12\ which requires that the rules of the exchange provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
The Commission notes that the Exchange believes that the increase in
the Specialist Transaction Fee, which became effective on October 3,
2005, resulted in a disproportionate burden on Specialists who trade
high-priced and/or high volume securities because the Specialist
Transaction Fee is based on the dollar value of equity shares executed
by the specialist. Therefore, and as noted above, the Exchange has
reduced the amount of the Specialist Transaction Fee from $.00007 to
$.00005 in a separate filing (effective upon filing on February 6,
2006) \13\ and now requests approval to reimburse the increased amount
of the Specialist Transaction Fee collected since October 3, 2005. The
Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal to rebate the increased
amount of the Specialist Transaction Fee collected between October 3,
2005 and February 6, 2006 is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Commission finds good cause for approving this
proposed rule change, as amended, before the thirtieth day after the
date of publication of notice thereof in the Federal Register. The
Commission believes that accelerated approval of the proposal is
appropriate in order to allow Amex to issue credits to its Specialists
as quickly as possible.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\14\ that the proposed rule change, and Amendment No. 1 thereto,
(SR-Amex-2005-130) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2199 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53824-53825]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18935]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0172]

Hours of Service: Flat Top Transport; Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from Flat
Top Transport requesting an exemption from the hours-of-service (HOS)
regulations. Flat Top Transport requests a four-month exemption for
``immediate and emergency delivery of dry and bulk food grade products
to locations that supply stores and distribution centers nationally.''
FMCSA requests public comment on the applicant's request for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2022-0172 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
(FMCSA-2022-0172) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets
Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its exemption process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov. As described in the
system of records notice DOT/ALL 14-FDMS, which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy, the comments are searchable by
the name of the submitter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bernadette Walker, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards, FMCSA;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]. If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2022-0172), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number (``FMCSA-2022-0172'') in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button, and type your
comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you
are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third
party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA
will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency must
publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with
the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted,
the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The
notice must specify the effective period and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.300(b)).

III. Applicant's Request

    Flat Top Transport seeks a four month exemption from the HOS
regulations in 49 CFR part 395. Flat Top Transport requests the
exemption to provide ``immediate and emergency delivery of dry and bulk
food grade products to locations that supply stores and distribution
centers nationally.'' Flat Top Transport describes itself as a small
trucking company with between 9 and 10 drivers which delivers products
such as food grade flour, corn meal, and salts used for the production
of cereals, baked goods, canned goods and meat processing.
    A copy of Flat Top Transport's application for exemption is
available for review in the docket for this notice.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public

comment from all interested persons on Flat Top Transport's application
for an exemption from the requirements in 49 CFR part 395. All comments
received before the close of business on the comment closing date
indicated at the beginning of this notice will be considered and will
be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the Addresses section of this notice. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments,
FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant
information that becomes available after the comment closing date.
Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new
material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-18935 Filed 8-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64164-64167]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0303; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-220-AD;
Amendment 39-17620; AD 2013-20-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
the Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a report of cracks on airplanes prior to line number
1308 in the forward and aft inner chords of the station (STA) 2598
bulkhead, and the bulkhead upper and lower webs. This AD requires, as
applicable, repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) and low
frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections for cracks in the splice
fitting, support frame, forward and aft inner chords, floor support,
bulkhead upper web on the upper left and right side of the bulkhead,
and the bulkhead lower web on the lower left side of the bulkhead and
repair if necessary; and repetitive post-repair inspections and repair
if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in
the splice fitting, support frame, floor support, forward and aft inner
chords, and the bulkhead upper and lower webs of the STA 2598 bulkhead,
which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES:DATES: This AD is effective December 2, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of December 2,
2013.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2013 (78 FR
21854). The NPRM proposed to require, as applicable, repetitive HFEC
and LFEC inspections for cracks in the splice fitting, support frame,
forward and aft inner chords, floor support, bulkhead upper web on the
upper left and right side of the bulkhead, and the bulkhead lower web
on the lower left side of the bulkhead and repair if necessary; and
repetitive post-repair inspections and repair if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 21854, April 12, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Include the Lower Web in the Inspection of the Unrepaired
Structure

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (78 FR
21854, April 12, 2013) to clarify that the inspection of the unrepaired
structure includes the lower webs. Boeing stated that the inspections
for the unrepaired structure include both the upper and lower bulkhead
webs, but that paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the NPRM (78 FR 21854, April 12,
2013) specifies only the upper web.
    We agree with Boeing's comment. For appropriate service
information, the NPRM (78 FR 21854, April 12, 2013) referred to Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November 8, 2012, which also
describes procedures for inspecting the bulkhead lower web. We have
clarified the inspection in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD by
referring to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November
8, 2012, for specific inspection procedures and locations.

Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that, for clarity, the unsafe condition be revised
to more specifically identify the location of potential cracking (i.e.,
the body station 2598 bulkhead).
    We agree with Boeing's request. We have revised the unsafe
condition in the SUMMARY and paragraph (e) of this final rule to
clarify the location of the bulkhead.

Request To Clarify the Discussion Section

    Boeing requested clarification of the Discussion section in the
NPRM (78 FR 21854, April 12, 2013). Boeing stated that the Discussion
does not mention cracks found in the splice fitting and incorrectly
refers to the ``cutout for the horizontal stabilizer rear spar.''
    We agree that the commenter's proposed clarification provides a
more accurate description of the report of cracks. However, the
Discussion section is not carried over into the final rule; therefore,
no change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 21854, April 12, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 21854, April 12, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.....................  28 work-hours x $85              $0   $2,380 per           $26,180 per
                                   per hour = $2,380                     inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs and
post-repair inspections that would be required based on the results of
the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this repair:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair.......................................  13 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0           $1,105
                                                $1,105.
Post-repair Inspection.......................  12 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 0            1,020
                                                $1,020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For any repairs that would be necessary based on the results of the
post-repair inspection, we have not received definitive data that would
enable us to provide cost estimates for that on-condition action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-20-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17620; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0303; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-220-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 2, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -400F
series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November 8, 2012.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on airplanes prior to
line number 1308 in the forward and aft inner chords of the station
(STA) 2598 bulkhead, and the bulkhead upper and lower webs. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the splice fitting,
support frame, floor support, forward and aft inner chords, and the
bulkhead upper and lower webs of the STA 2598 bulkhead, which could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) and Low Frequency Eddy Current
(LFEC) Inspections

    At the compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated
November 8, 2012; except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD:
Do HFEC and LFEC inspections, as applicable, for cracks in the
splice fitting, support frame, floor support, forward and aft inner
chords, the bulkhead upper web on the upper left and right side of
the bulkhead, and the bulkhead lower web on the lower left side of
the bulkhead, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November 8, 2012.
    (1) If no cracking is found, repeat the applicable inspections
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, thereafter, at the applicable
time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November 8, 2012.
    (2) If any cracking is found, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before further flight, do the applicable repair, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November 8, 2012; except as
provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated
November 8, 2012, do HFEC and LFEC inspections for cracks in the
unrepaired structure, and do an HFEC inspection for cracks in the
repaired structure; as specified in and in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2815, dated November 8, 2012.
    (A) If no cracking is found, repeat the applicable HFEC and LFEC
inspections specified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD,
thereafter, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated
November 8, 2012.
    (B) If any cracking is found, before further flight, repair
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(h) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November 8,
2012, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before
further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated
November 8, 2012, specifies a compliance time ``after the original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2815, dated November 8,
2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 19, 2013.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-24042 Filed 10-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P