SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT)
(Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT)
(Renewal)

EPA ICR Number 0660.11, OMB Control Number 2060-0107

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the regulations
published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT were proposed on January 5, 1981
and promulgated on November 1, 1982, amended on June 24, 1986, and
October 17, 2000.  These regulations apply to the following surface
coating lines in the metal coil surface coating industry: each prime
coat operation, each finish coat operation, and each prime and finish
coat operation cured simultaneously where the finish coat is applied wet
on wet over the prime coat.  These regulations apply to metal coil
coating facilities commencing construction, modification, or
reconstruction after the date of proposal.  This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT.

	In general, all New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) require initial
notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports.  Owners or
operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an
affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.

	Approximately 158 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and
it is estimated that no additional sources per year will become subject
to the regulation in the next three years.

In the United States, there are approximately 158 metal coil surface
coating facilities which are owned and operated by the metal coil
surface coating industry (the “Affected Public”).  These facilities
are privately owned for-profit businesses, and are not owned by state,
local, tribal, or the Federal government.  The burden to the “Affected
Public” is listed in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost – NSPS
for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT) (Renewal).
The Federal government burden associated with the review of reports
submitted by the respondent is shown in Table 2: Average Annual EPA
Burden – NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
TT) (Renewal).

In the development of this Information Collection Request (ICR), we
addressed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “Terms of
Clearance (TOC)” on the active ICR.  The TOC are as follows:

This collection of information is approved for 3 years.  Before
resubmission of this ICR, the Agency should update wage estimates,
continuing to refer to most recently available data from Bureau of Labor
Statistics.  In addition, the agency should verify the number of
respondent entities.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC.  The updated labor
rates and the number of respondents have been thoroughly checked, and
all estimates have been updated.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as
amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary
sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous
emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated
technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator
review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require
any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports;  (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from metal coil surface coating cause or
contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS was promulgated
for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  In addition, the collected
information is used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal
proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard at all times.  During the performance tests, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency
or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements
of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source
to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and
operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the
standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess
emissions, to identify problems at the facility, to verify
operation/maintenance procedures and compliance.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
60, subpart TT.

3(a)  Non-duplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 26900) on May 9, 2011.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s
internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next
three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as
reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.
 OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval
of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on
our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided
an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as
it was being developed.  In developing this ICR, we reviewed information
available from the United States Census Bureau, and websites covering
metal coil surface coating.  We also consulted with the EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer, and Program
Integration Division, the National Coil Coating Association at (216)
241-7333, and White Engineering Surfaces Corporation at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

After a thorough review, it is our policy to respond to comments
received since the last ICR renewal, as well as to those submitted in
response to the first Federal Register notice.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the
regulations promulgated by OMB under 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years allows the EPA to establish the compliance history of a source,
any pattern of non-compliance, and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond the five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (CBI) (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

The reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not
include sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are bulk
gasoline terminals.  The United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards
is SIC 3479 which corresponds to the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) 332812 for Metal Coating, Engraving
(Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Service to Manufacturing.

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data that is recorded or reported is required by
NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT)
(Renewal).

A source must make the following reports:

Notifications

Notification of construction/reconstruction	60.7(a)(1)

Anticipated startup	60.7(a)(2)

Notification of actual startup	60.7(a)(3)

Initial performance test results	60.8(a), 60.465(b)

Initial performance test	60.8(d), 60.465(b)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system	60.7(a)(5)

Physical or operational change	60.7(a)(4)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Maintain records of startup, shutdown, or malfunction period where the
continuous monitoring system is inoperative	60.7(b)

Excess emissions report 	60.7(c), 60.465(c), 60.465(d)

Monthly performance test of volume-weighted average emissions of VOCs
kg/l of coating solids applied	60.463(b), 60.463(c)

Record average VOC content of coatings applied monthly	60.464(a),
60.464(b)

For thermal incineration: install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
temperature monitoring device	60.464(c)

Records are required to be retained for 2 years.  The first two years of
records must be retained at the facility.	60.7(f), 60.465(e)

For catalytic incineration: maintain daily records of upstream and
downstream gas temperature	60.465(e)

Maintain daily records of incinerator combustion temperature, or amounts
of solvent recovered	60.464(c), 60.465(e)

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are not widely used.  At this time, it is
estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device that continuously
records the combustion temperature of any effluent gases incinerated to
achieve compliance.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 24, Reference Method
25, or data provided by the formulator of the coating, and repeat
performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way (e.g., continuous parameter
monitoring system).  Although personnel at the source still need to
evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly
reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online Tracking Information
system (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority could inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and to note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.  The semiannual reports are used for problem identification,
as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance
determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into OTIS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the
EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of
compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution
compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA
regional offices, and EPA headquarters.  EPA delegated Authorities can
edit, store, retrieve, and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for two years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these to be the minimum
requirements needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce
them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses
can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden
will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NSPS for
Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 15,643
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$119.36 ($56.84 + 110%)

Technical	$99.18 ($47.23 + 110%)

Clerical	$49.35 ($23.50 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, March 2011, "Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group."  The rates are from column 1, "Total
Compensation."  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The types of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standard are both labor costs, which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR. and the costs associated with
continuous monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time cost when
a facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents	(D)

Total Capital / Startup Cost,  (B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents  with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Temperature	$8,000	0	$0	$2,100	158	$331,800

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are zero.  This is the
total of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are
$331,800.  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $331,800.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  EPA’s overall compliance and enforcement
program includes activities such as: the examination of records
maintained by the respondents; periodic inspection of sources of
emissions; and the publication and distribution of collected
information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $39,283.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

		Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

		Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2011
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates
have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NSPS for Metal Coil
Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT) (Renewal).

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 158 existing respondents will be subject to the
standard.  It is estimated that no additional respondent per year will
become subject to the standard.  The overall average number of
respondents, as shown in the table below, is 158 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table that
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	0	158	0	0	158

2	0	158	0	0	158

3	0	158	0	0	158

Average	0	158	0	0	158

1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed, and
modified affected facilities.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 158.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction	0	1	0	0

Notification of performance test	0	1.2	0	0

Notification of actual startup	0	1	0	0

Report of performance test	0	1.2	0	0

Emissions report	158	2	0	316

Temperature variance report	126	0.5	0	63

	Total	379

The number of Total Annual Responses is 379.

The total annual labor costs are $1,497,459.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost –
NSPS Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT) (Renewal).

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor hours are 15,643.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT)
(Renewal).

Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 41 hours per
response.

The total annual capital/startup and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs to the regulated entity are $331,800.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is
estimated to be 872 labor hours at a cost of $39,283.  See Table 2:
Annual Agency Burden and Cost Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part
60, Subpart TT) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in the labor hours in this ICR compared to the
previous ICR.  Consultations with the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) and trade associations revealed that there are
approximately 158 sources subject to the rule, with no new facilities
expected to be constructed over the next three years of this ICR.

However, there is an increase in the estimated burden cost as currently
identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens.  The increase is
not due to any program changes.  The change in burden is due to the use
of the most updated labor rates.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 41 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for
a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0226.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the
draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.  The documents are also available for
public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0226 and OMB Control Number
2060-0107in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NSPS for Metal Coil
Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT) (Renewal)

Burden item	(A)

Person

hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year	(C)

Person hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Respondents per year  a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person hours per year

(Ex0.05)	(G)

Clerical person hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Total Cost

Per year b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	$0

     B.  Required activities

        Initial performance tests c	60	1	60	0	0	0	0	$0

        Repeat of performance tests d	60	0.2	12	0	0	0	0	$0

     C.  Gather existing information	See 3B

	     D.  Write Report

        Notification of construction/reconstruction e	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of  initial performance test e	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of actual startup e	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Report of performance test	See 3B

	        Emissions report f	5	2	10	158	1,580	79	158	$173,931.14

        Temperature variance report g	4	0.5	2	126	252	12.6	25.2
$27,740.92

Subtotal  for Reporting  Requirements

2,106.8

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	See 3A

	     B.  Plan activities	See 3B

	     C.  Implement activities (monthly performance

           test) h	1	12	12	158	1,896	94.8	189.6	$208,717.36

     D.  Develop record system

          Records of operating parameter i	0.25	250	62.5	158	9,875
493.75	987.5	$1,087,069.62

Subtotal  for Recordkeeping Requirements

13,536.65

Subtotals: Labor Burden and costs

	13,603	680.15	1,360.3	$1,497,459.04

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

15,643.45

15,643

    (rounded)

$1,497,459

Assumptions:

  a 	 We have assumed that there are approximately 158 respondents, with
no additional new or reconstructed sources becoming subject to the rule
over the next three years.

  b  This ICR uses the following labor rates:  $119.36 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $99.18 per hour for
Technical labor, and $49.35 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates
are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, March 2011, Table 2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational and
Industry groups.  The rates are from column 1, Total Compensation.  The
rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit
packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  We have assumed that it will take 60 hours for each respondent to
perform initial performance tests.  All sources are in compliance with
the initial rule requirements including the initial performance test.

d  We have assumed that 20 percent of sources would have to repeat the
performance test due to failure.

e  We have assumed that it will take each respondent two hours once per
year to write the report.

f  We have assumed that each respondent will take 5 hours twice per year
to complete the performance test report.

g  We have assumed that 80 percent of facilities will use incineration,
and will file a temperature variance report every other year.

h  We have assumed that each respondent will take 1 hour once per month
to implement the performance test.

i   We have assumed that each respondent will take 0.25 hours 250 times
per year to develop the operating parameter record system.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Metal Coil Surface
Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT) (Renewal)

Activity	(A)

EPA person- hours per occurrence	(B)

No. of occurrences per plant per year	(C)

EPA person- hours per plant per year

(C=AxB)	(D)

Plants per year  a	(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)	(F)

Management person-hours per year

(Ex0.05)

	(G)

Clerical person-hours per year

(Ex0.1)	(H)

Cost, $ b

   Initial performance test

      New plant 	24	1	24	0	0	0	0	$0

   Repeat performance test

      New plant c	24	0.2	4.8	0	0	0	0	$0

   Report review

      New plant

        Notification of construction	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of initial startup d	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of actual startup d	0.5	1	0.5	0	0	0	0	$0

        Notification of initial test d	0.5	1.2	0.6	0	0	0	0	$0

        Review test results e	8	1.2	9.6	0	0	0	0	$0

      Existing plant

        VOC emissions report f	2	2	4	158	632	31.6	63.2	$32,753.08

        Temperature reports g	2	0.5	1	126	126	6.3	12.6	$6,529.89

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	758	37.9	75.8	$39,282.97

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

871.7

872 (rounded)

$39,283

 	Assumptions:

    a  We have assumed that there are approximately 158 respondents,
with no additional new or reconstructed sources becoming subject to the
rule over the next

    three years.

b  This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6
benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $62.27 for Managerial (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 x 1.6), $46.21
for Technical (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 x 1.6) and $25.01 Clerical (GS-6,
Step 3, $15.63 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) (2011 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates
of pay.

c  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will repeat the
performance tests due to failure.

d  We have assumed that each respondent will take 0.5 hours to review
the startup and initial test notifications.

e  We have assumed that each respondent will take 8 hours to review the
test results.

f  We have assumed that each respondent will take 2 hours twice per year
to review the VOC emissions report.

    g  We have assumed that 80 percent of facilities will use
incineration, and will file a temperature variance report every other
year.

 PAGE

 PAGE   15

 PAGE


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16907-16910]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6956]

========================================================================
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. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0315; Special Conditions No. 23-257-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model EMB 505; Inflatable Side-
Facing Seat Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt With an Integrated Airbag
Device in the Side-Facing Divan Aft Position

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the installation of an
inflatable three-point restraint safety belt with an integrated airbag
device at the aft position in two-place side-facing divan seats on the
Embraer S.A. aircraft model EMB-505. These airplanes, as modified by
the installation of these inflatable safety belts, will have novel and
unusual design features associated with the upper-torso restraint
portions of the three-point safety belts, which contain an integrated
airbag device. 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: The effective date of these special conditions is March 16,
2012.
    Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0315
using any of the following methods:
    Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bob Stegeman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane
Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views,
or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the
regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in
duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received
on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the
Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules
Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the
closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in
the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2012-0315.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

Background

    On December 13, 2010, Embraer S.A. applied for a Design Change
Application, for the installation of a two-place side-facing divan on
aircraft model EMB-505. Embraer S.A. applied for, and was granted,
Exemption No. 10321 to Sec.  23.562 for the two-place divan due to its
unique installation and safety requirements for the occupants. The
exemption included additional testing requirements. Embraer opted to
use a three-point safety belt restraint system for the aft occupant
seat to meet the exemption safety requirements.
    The inflatable restraint systems are three-point safety belt
restraint systems consisting of a lap belt and shoulder harness with an
inflatable airbag attached to the shoulder harness belt. The inflatable
portion of the restraint system will rely on sensors to electronically
activate the inflator for deployment.
    If an emergency landing occurs, the airbag will inflate, limit
forward translation and prevent contact with the forward occupant or
other interior structure due to flailing. This will reduce the
potential for head and torso injury and protect the forward occupant as
well. The inflatable restraint behaves in a manner similar to an
automotive airbag; however, in this case, the airbag is integrated into
the shoulder belt. While airbags and inflatable restraints are standard
in the automotive industry, the use of an inflatable restraint system
is novel for general aviation operations.
    The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on
the basis of providing the same current level of safety as the
conventional

certification basis airplane occupant restraint systems. The FAA has
two primary safety concerns with the installation of airbags or
inflatable restraints:
     That they perform properly under foreseeable operating
conditions; and
     That they do not perform in a manner or at such times as
to impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or
constitute a hazard to the airplane or occupants.
    The latter point has the potential to be the more rigorous of the
requirements. An unexpected deployment while conducting the takeoff or
landing phases of flight may result in an unsafe condition. The
unexpected deployment may either startle the pilot or generate a force
sufficient to cause a sudden movement of the control yoke. Either
action could result in a loss of control of the airplane, the
consequences of which are magnified due to the low operating altitudes
during these phases of flight. This concern is of lesser consequence in
this application because it is not installed in a cockpit position. The
FAA has considered this when establishing these special conditions.
    The inflatable restraint system relies on sensors to electronically
activate the inflator for deployment. These sensors could be
susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a
potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of an inadvertent
deployment must be considered in establishing the reliability of the
system. Embraer S.A. must show that the effects of an inadvertent
deployment in flight are not a hazard to the airplane or that an
inadvertent deployment is extremely improbable. In addition, general
aviation aircraft are susceptible to a large amount of cumulative wear
and tear on a restraint system. The potential for inadvertent
deployment may increase as a result of this cumulative damage.
Therefore, the impact of wear and tear on inadvertent deployment must
be considered. The effect of this cumulative damage means a life limit
must be established for the appropriate system components in the
restraint system design.
    There are additional factors to be considered to minimize the
chances of inadvertent deployment. General aviation airplanes are
exposed to a unique operating environment. The effect of this
environment on inadvertent deployment must be understood. Therefore,
qualification testing of the firing hardware/software must consider the
following:
     The airplane vibration levels appropriate for a general
aviation airplane; and
     The inertial loads that result from typical flight or
ground maneuvers, including gusts and hard landings.

Any tendency for the firing mechanism to activate as a result of these
loads or acceleration levels is unacceptable.
    Other influences on inadvertent deployment include high intensity
electromagnetic fields (HIRF) and lightning. Since the sensors that
trigger deployment are electronic, they must be protected from the
effects of these threats. To comply with HIRF and lightning
requirements, the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint system is
considered a critical system, since its inadvertent deployment could
have a hazardous effect on the airplane.
    Given the level of safety of the occupant restraints currently
installed, the inflatable restraint system must show that it will offer
an equivalent level of protection for an emergency landing. If an
inadvertent deployment occurs, the restraint must still be at least as
strong as a Technical Standard Order approved belt and shoulder
harnesses. There is no requirement for the inflatable portion of the
restraint to offer protection during multiple impacts, where more than
one impact would require protection.
    The inflatable restraint system must deploy and provide protection
for each occupant under an emergency landing condition. The side-facing
seats of EMB-505 model airplanes are certificated to the structural
requirements of Sec.  23.562 and Exemption 10321; therefore, the test
emergency landing pulses identified must be used to satisfy this
requirement.
    A wide range of occupants may use the inflatable restraint;
therefore, the protection offered by this restraint should be effective
for occupants that range from the fifth percentile female to the
ninety-fifth percentile male. Energy absorption must be performed in a
consistent manner for this occupant range.
    In support of this operational capability, there must be a means to
verify the integrity of this system before each flight. Embraer S.A.
may establish inspection intervals where they have demonstrated the
system to be reliable between these intervals.
    An inflatable restraint may be ``armed'' even though no occupant is
using the seat. While there will be means to verify the integrity of
the system before flight, it is also prudent to require unoccupied
seats with active restraints not constitute a hazard to any occupant.
This will protect any individual performing maintenance inside the
cockpit while the aircraft is on the ground. The restraint must also
provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue personnel to
the presence of an inflatable restraint system.
    In addition, the design must prevent the inflatable seatbelt from
being incorrectly buckled and/or installed such that the airbag would
not properly deploy. Embraer S.A., may show that such deployment is not
hazardous to the occupant and will still provide the required
protection.
    The cabins of the Embraer S.A. model airplane identified in these
special conditions are confined areas, and the FAA is concerned that
noxious gasses may accumulate if the airbag deploys. When deployment
occurs, either by design or inadvertently, there must not be a release
of hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cockpit.
    An inflatable restraint should not increase the risk already
associated with fire. Therefore, the inflatable restraint should be
protected from the effects of fire to avoid creating an additional
hazard by, for example, a rupture of the inflator.
    Finally, the airbag is likely to have a large volume displacement,
and possibly impede the egress of an occupant. Since the bag deflates
to absorb energy, it is likely that the inflatable restraint would be
deflated at the time an occupant would attempt egress. However, it is
appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable
restraint may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as
reasonable time. This time limit will offer a level of protection
throughout the impact event.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101, Embraer S.A. must show that
the EMB-505 model airplane continues to meet the applicable provisions
of the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for
the type certificate. The regulations incorporated by reference in the
type certificate are commonly referred to as the ``original type
certification basis.'' The following model is covered by this special
condition:

Embraer S.A. Model EMB-505

    For the model listed above, the certification basis also includes
all exemptions, if any; equivalent level of safety findings, if any;
and special conditions not relevant to the special conditions adopted
by this rulemaking action.
    If the Administrator determines that the applicable airworthiness
regulations

(i.e., part 23 as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for the AmSafe, Inc., inflatable restraint as
installed on this Embraer S.A. model because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions
of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in Sec.  11.19, are
issued in accordance with Sec.  11.38, and become part of the type
certification basis in accordance with Sec.  21.101.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the models for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
the special conditions would also apply to that model under the
provisions of Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Embraer S.A. EMB-505 model airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    A three-point safety belt restraint system incorporating an
inflatable airbag at the aft position in the two-place side-facing
divan.
    The purpose of the airbag is to reduce the potential for injury in
the event of an accident. In a severe impact, an airbag will deploy
from the shoulder harness, in a manner similar to an automotive airbag.
The airbag will deploy between the head of the occupant and airplane
interior structure and forward adjacent occupant, which will provide
some protection to the head of the occupant and significantly limit
forward flailing of the upper torso and head. The restraint will rely
on sensors to electronically activate the inflator for deployment.
    The Code of Federal Regulations states performance criteria for
seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these
criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning
inflatable restraints. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in
addition to the requirements of part 21 and part 23, special conditions
are needed to address the installation of this inflatable restraint.
    Accordingly, these special conditions are adopted for the Embraer
S.A. EMB-505 model airplane equipped with three-point inflatable
restraints. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on
further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil
aviation authorities.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Embraer S.A. EMB-505 model airplane equipped with the three-point
inflatable restraint systems.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the previously identified Embraer S.A. airplane model. It is not a
rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who
applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
    Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register; however, the substance of these special conditions
has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior
instances and has been derived without substantive change from those
previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would
result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For
this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the
delivery of the airplane(s), the FAA has determined that prior public
notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause
exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is
requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that
may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for
comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

    The FAA has determined that this project will be accomplished on
the basis of not lowering the current level of safety of the Embraer
S.A. EMB-505 model airplane occupant restraint systems. 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 this model. Embraer S.A., Model EMB 505;
Inflatable Side-Facing Seat Three-Point Restraint Safety Belt with an
Integrated Airbag Device in the Side-Facing Divan Aft Position of the
Embraer S.A. EMB-505 model airplanes.
    In addition to the provisions of 14 CFR 23.562 and 23.785, the
minimum acceptable standards for certification of multiple place side-
facing divans equipped with an airbag system in the shoulder harnesses
are as follows:
    1. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will deploy and
provide protection under the dynamic test conditions specified in Title
14 CFR 23.562. It is not necessary to account for floor warpage, as
required by Sec.  23.562(b)(3) or vertical dynamic loads, as required
by Sec.  23.562(b)(1). The means of protection must take into
consideration a range of stature from a 5th percentile female to a 95th
percentile male. The inflatable restraint must provide a consistent
approach to energy absorption throughout that range.
    2. The inflatable restraint must provide adequate protection for
each occupant. In addition, unoccupied seats that have an active
restraint must not constitute a hazard to any occupant.
    3. The design must prevent the inflatable restraint from being
incorrectly buckled and/or incorrectly installed such that the airbag
would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such
deployment is not hazardous to the occupant and will provide the
required protection.
    4. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint system is not
susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear or
the inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers
(including gusts and hard landings) that are likely to be experienced
in service.
    5. It must be extremely improbable for an inadvertent deployment of
the restraint system to occur, or an inadvertent deployment must not
impede the pilot's ability to maintain control of the airplane or cause
an unsafe condition (or hazard to the airplane). In addition, a
deployed inflatable restraint must be at least as strong as a Technical
Standard Order (C114) certificated belt and shoulder harness.
    6. It must be shown that deployment of the inflatable restraint
system is not hazardous to the occupant or result in injuries that
could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include occupants
whose restraint is loosely fastened.
    7. It must be shown that an inadvertent deployment that could cause
injury to a sitting person is improbable. In addition, the restraint
must also provide suitable visual warnings that would alert rescue

personnel to the presence of an inflatable restraint system.
    8. It must be shown that the inflatable restraint will not impede
rapid egress of the occupants 10 seconds after its deployment.
    9. The system must be protected from lightning and HIRF. The
threats specified in existing regulations regarding lighting and HIRF,
are incorporated by reference for the purpose of measuring lightning
and HIRF protection. Also, for purposes of complying with these
requirements, the airbag system is considered a critical system at
pilot/co-pilot positions only.
    10. It must be shown that the inflatable restraints will not
release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the
cabin.
    11. The inflatable restraint system installation must be protected
from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
    12. There must be a means to verify the integrity of the inflatable
restraint activation system before each flight or it must be
demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals.
    13. A life limit must be established for appropriate system
components.
    14. Qualification testing of the internal firing mechanism must be
performed at vibration levels appropriate for a general aviation
airplane.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 16, 2012.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-6956 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50503-50504]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23434]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0143; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-5]

Amendment of Class E Airspace, for Stevens Point, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Stevens Point Municipal Airport, Stevens
Point, WI. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the
decommissioning of the Stevens Point co-located VHF omnidirectional
range tactical air navigation system (VORTAC) and cancellation of the
VOR approaches. This action enhances the safety and management of
standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 1, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E to support standard instrument approach procedures
for IFR operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (82 FR 32151, July 12, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0143 to
modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Stevens Point Municipal Airport, Stevens Point, WI. The
Stevens Point VORTAC has been out of service since 2012 due to extreme
fluctuations and out-of-tolerance structure. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.6-mile (from a 6.5-mile) radius of Stevens Point
Municipal Airport, Stevens Point, WI. The segments that extended 1.8
miles each side of the Stevens Point VORTAC extending from the 6.5-mile
radius to 7 miles northeast, east, and southwest of the VORTAC, would
be removed due to the decommissioning of the VORTAC and cancellation of
the VOR approaches.
    This action enhances the safety and management of the standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Stevens Point, WI [Amended]

Stevens Point Municipal Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]32'43'' N., long. 89[deg]31'49'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Stevens Point Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on October 20, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-23434 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 43617]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4269-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Texas (FEMA-4269-DR), dated April 25, 2016, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 23, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J.
Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Kevin L. Hannes as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-15812 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26945-26948]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0384; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-058-AD;
Amendment 39-17041; AD 2012-09-06]
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 737-700 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by reports that the aft seat leg fittings span the station (STA) 521.45
``stay-out zone.'' This AD requires for certain airplanes, replacing
the seat track pivot link assemblies, seat track sections, and floor
panels. For certain airplanes, this AD also requires moving certain
rows of passenger seats. For certain other airplanes, this AD also
requires inspecting certain areas of the seat tracks for damage, and
corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the seat attachment structure and possible injury to
passengers during an emergency landing.

DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of June 12, 2012.

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Piccola, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2011 (76 FR
22828). That NPRM proposed to require, for certain airplanes, replacing
the seat track pivot link assemblies, seat track sections, and floor
panels. For certain airplanes, that NPRM also proposed to require
moving certain rows of passenger seats. For certain other airplanes,
that NPRM also proposed to require inspecting certain areas of the seat
tracks for damage, and corrective actions if necessary.

Explanation of Change to the AD

    We reviewed the compliance times that were proposed and determined
that the compliance time in paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM (76 FR 22828,
April 25, 2011) applies to all airplanes identified in paragraph (h) of
this AD and the compliance time proposed in paragraph (h)(2) of the
NPRM is unnecessary. We have therefore removed paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of the NPRM and revised paragraph (h) of this AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(76 FR 22828, April 25, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing supports the NPRM.

Request To Withdraw the Proposed AD (76 FR 22828, April 25, 2011)

    AirTran Airways (ATA) (now owned by Southwest Airlines) and
Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that the NPRM (76 FR 22828, April
25, 2011) be withdrawn. ATA and SWA stated that the Model 737-700
series airplanes owned by ATA and transferred to SWA ownership have
been or will be modified to have new B/E Aerospace seats installed in a
different layout of passenger accommodation (LOPA). The LOPA for those
B/E Aerospace seats does not have a seat leg fitting that spans the STA
521.45 ``stay-out zone.'' ATA stated that it accomplished the actions
of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1286, dated
November 20, 2008, or Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009, on 22 of its
airplanes; those airplanes and the remaining 24 airplanes in its fleet
would be modified to SWA's seat configuration before the effective date
of the AD. ATA also stated that it sold three of the 49 airplanes
listed in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1596, dated
November 20, 2008. ATA and SWA stated that since the new seats are from
a different seat manufacturer and will be installed in a different
approved LOPA, the unsafe condition would no longer exist.
    We disagree with the commenters' request to withdraw the proposed
AD (76 FR 22828, April 25, 2011). Replacing the existing Recaro seat
configuration with the B/E Aerospace configuration

would address the unsafe condition while that configuration is
installed. However, the approval for the Recaro seats with the LOPA
that has a seat leg fitting that spans the STA 521.45 ``stay-out zone''
would still exist. It would be possible, for example, for an operator
that has purchased one of the three airplanes that ATA sold to convert
the seats and LOPA back to the Recaro seats and the related LOPA that
spans the STA 521.45 ``stay-out zone.'' In light of this, the unsafe
condition is likely to exist or develop in the affected airplanes. As a
result, we are issuing this AD to eliminate the unsafe condition by
requiring that seat leg fittings do not span the ``stay-out zone.'' The
AD is the appropriate vehicle for mandating such actions. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Applicability of the Proposed AD (76 FR 22828, April
25, 2011)

    ATA and SWA also requested that if the NPRM (76 FR 22828, April 25,
2011) is not withdrawn, that the proposed applicability be revised to
apply only to airplanes with specific Recaro seats installed in a
specific configuration. SWA stated that if the airplane does not have
those specific Recaro seats installed with the foot spanning the STA
521.45 ``stay-out zone,'' then the unsafe condition does not exist and
the AD should not apply. ATA also stated that having an AD include
airplanes on which the modification to a different LOPA or the
applicable service bulletins has been accomplished would result in
applying for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) each time a
revision to that LOPA is issued. ATA stated that issuing AMOCs each
time a LOPA is revised would produce an undue burden on both the
airline and the FAA.
    We partially agree. The applicability statement of this AD
references certain service bulletins, one of which contains conditions
as part of its effectivity. Part of the applicability statement in
paragraph (c) of this AD contains an indirect reference to the
conditional statement that the commenters requested, i.e., ``a
passenger seat configuration that could result in a seat leg plunger
being installed across a seat track pivot point * * *,'' as described
in paragraph 1.A. of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-
1286, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009. Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009, is
referenced in paragraphs (c)(1) (as an applicability condition) and (g)
(in the identification of affected airplanes) of this AD. When an
airplane has been modified so that a seat leg plunger is not installed
across that specific seat track pivot point, the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD would not be required. The other service
bulletins referenced in the proposed AD (76 FR 22828, April 25, 2011)
do specify specific airplanes without conditional statements on whether
certain seat configurations are installed. Also, we do not consider it
appropriate to include various provisions in an AD applicable only to
individual airplanes or to a single operator's seat configurations or
unique use of an airplane. Once we issue this AD, any person may
request approval of an AMOC under the provisions of paragraph (k) of
this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Change to AMOC Paragraph

    We have added paragraph (k)(3) to this final rule to provide
operators with the option to apply for an AMOC that has been approved
by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, to make those findings.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed--except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (76 FR 22828, April 25, 2011) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (76 FR 22828, April 25, 2011).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 50 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.

                                             Table--Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Average                                      Number of
                                 Work      labor                         Cost per        U.S.-
   Boeing Service Bulletin      hours     rate per       Parts           product       registered    Fleet cost
                                            hour                                       airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
737-53-1286.................         96        $85  Up to $28,258..  Up to $36,418..           50  Up to
                                                                                $1,820,900.
737-25-1596.................          4         85  None...........  340                       12  $4,080.
737-25-1598.................          3         85  None...........  255                        1  255.
737-25-1599.................          3         85  None...........  255                       14  3,570.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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):

2012-09-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17041; Docket No. FAA-
2011-0384; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-058-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 12, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-700 series
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in the
service bulletins specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)
of this AD.
    (1) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1286,
Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009.
    (2) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1598, dated
December 8, 2009.
    (3) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1599, dated
January 20, 2010.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD results from reports that the aft seat leg fittings span
the station (STA) 521.45 ``stay-out zone.'' The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the seat
attachment structure and possible injury to passengers during an
emergency landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modifying Seat Track Structure

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009: Within 72
months after the effective date of this AD, replace, with new
components, certain floor panels, seat track pivot link assemblies,
and seat track sections with new components, and modify certain seat
tracks, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1286, Revision 1, dated
December 14, 2009.

(h) Moving Seat Rows After Modifying Seat Track Structure

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1596, dated November 20, 2008: After accomplishing
the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD but within 72 months
after the effective date of this AD, move certain seat rows in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1596, dated November 20, 2008.

(i) Moving Seat Rows and General Visual Inspection of Seat Tracks Using
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1598, Dated December 8, 2009

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1598, dated December 8, 2009: Within 72 months after
the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of
certain areas of the seat tracks for damage, all applicable
corrective actions, and move certain seat rows, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1598, dated December 8, 2009. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.

(j) Moving Seat Rows and General Visual Inspection of Seat Tracks Using
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1599, Dated January
20, 2010

    For airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1599, dated January 20, 2010: Within 72 months after
the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of
certain areas of the seat tracks for damage, all applicable
corrective actions, and move certain seat rows, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-25-1599, dated January 20, 2010. Do all applicable
corrective actions before further flight.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sarah Piccola,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51 of the following service information:
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1596, dated
November 20, 2008.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1598,
dated December 8, 2009.
    (iii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-25-1599,
dated January 20, 2010.
    (iv) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1286,
Revision 1, dated December 14, 2009.
    (3) 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>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate; 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 2012.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-10891 Filed 5-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P