[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29287-29288]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2011-20]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before June 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2011-
0447 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.

     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility 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.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility 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: David Staples<PHONE_NUMBER>, Keira
Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Tyneka Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2011.
Dennis R. Pratte,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2011-0447.
    Petitioner: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.57(b) and (e)(3)(ii).
    Description of Relief Sought: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
requests to extend the night currency requirement prescribed in Sec.
61.57(b) to include type-rated, single-pilot by certification aircraft
(SFAR 41 and Commuter category aircraft) night currency by obtaining
night currency in another aircraft of the same category and class.
Additionally, Northrop Grumman requests to extend the night currency
provision to include type-rated aircraft that are authorized for
single-pilot operation by certification to Northrop Grumman's part 142
simulator program.
[FR Doc. 2011-12429 Filed 5-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52586-52587]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20574]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15Bc3-1 and Form MSDW; SEC File No. 270-93, OMB Control No.
3235-0087.

    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'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of
the previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
15Bc3-1 (17 CFR 240.15Bc3-1) and Form MSDW (17 CFR 249.1110) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 15Bc3-1 provides that a notice of withdrawal from registration
with the Commission as a bank municipal securities dealer must be filed
on Form MSDW. The Commission uses the information contained in Form
MSDW in determining whether it is in the public interest to permit a
bank municipal securities dealer to withdraw its registration. This
information is also important to the municipal securities dealer's
customers and to the public, because it provides, among other things,
the name and address of a person to contact regarding any of the
municipal securities dealer's unfinished business.
    Based upon past submissions, the staff estimates that, on an annual
basis, approximately three bank municipal securities dealers will file
a notice of withdrawal from registration with the

Commission as a bank municipal securities dealer on Form MSDW. The
staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary to comply
with the notice requirements set out in Rule 15Bc3-1 and Form MSDW is
0.5 per respondent, for a total burden of 1.5 hours per year. The staff
estimates that the average internal compliance cost per hour is
approximately $310. Therefore, the estimated total cost of compliance
for the respondents is approximately $465.
    Providing the information on the application is mandatory in order
to register with the Commission as a bank municipal securities dealer.
The information contained in the application will not be kept
confidential.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
(ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments
must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 19, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20574 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 35651]
[DOCID:fr21jn06-94]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments,
Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

June 14, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI06-2-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 7, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Carl Smid.
    e. Name of Project: French Creek Micro Hydro Project.
    f. Location: The proposed French Creek Micro Hydro Project will be
located on French Creek, tributary to the Salmon River, near the town
of Riggins, Idaho County, Idaho, affecting T. 24 N., R. 3 E., secs. 13
and 24, Boise Meridian. The powerhouse would be approximately one mile
from the confluence of French Creek with the Salmon River.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Chuck Cuddy, PLS, Cuddy and Associates, P.O.
Box 64, Orofino, ID 83544; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax: (208) 476-
5042; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or E-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: July 14,
2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and/or
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov.

    Please include the docket number (DI06-2-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed run-of-river French Creek
Micro Hydro Project would include: (1) A 2900-foot-long, 10-inch-
diameter PCV penstock, diverting 2 cfs from French Creek; (2) a
powerhouse containing a 15-kW Pelton-type turbine; and (3) appurtenant
facilities. The power would be used on-site at the owner's residence
and ranch. The project would not be connected to an interstate grid.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link, select ``Docket'' and follow the
instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', and/
or ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9789 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 56 (Monday, March 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16332-16333]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06044]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-33-000]

City of Goose Creek v. South Carolina Public Service Authority;
Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on March 16, 2020, pursuant to sections 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act,\1\ and Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice
and Procedures of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission), 18 CFR 385.206, the City of Goose Creek, (Complainant)
filed a formal complaint against the South Carolina Public Service
Authority (Santee Cooper or Respondent) alleging that Santee Cooper has
unjustly and unreasonably denied transmission service to the City of
Goose Creek and unduly discriminated against the City of Goose Creek by
denial of this service, as more fully explained in the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824e, 824i, 824j, 825e (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the

``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the website that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2020.

    Dated: March 17, 2020.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06044 Filed 3-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39010-39011]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP10-457-000; CP10-458-000; PF10-1-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Application

June 29, 2010.

    Take notice that on June 11, 2010, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), 363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221, filed applications in Docket No. CP10-457-000 and Docket No.
CP10-458-000 pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations, for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity to construct and operate its Line N
Compressor Installation Expansion Project and its Line N Relocation and
Interconnect Project (together, the Line N Projects). The application
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This
filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fer.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, the Line N Projects consist of approximately 20.1
miles of 20-inch natural gas pipeline, the new Holbrook Metering and
Regulation facility near a relocated interconnection with the
facilities of Texas Eastern Transmission L.P in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, and a new 4,740hp Buffalo Compressor Station in
Washington County, Pennsylvania. National Fuel states that the project
will create an additional 150,000 Dekatherms per day of firm capacity.
The estimated cost of the Line N Projects is approximately $55.7
million.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
David W. Reitz, Deputy General Counsel for National Fuel, 6363 Main
Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or call at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    National Fuel states that by letter dated October 20, 2009, in
Docket No. PF10-1-000, the Commission's Office of Energy Projects
granted National Fuel's October 13, 2009, request to utilize the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process for the
Line N Projects. National Fuel has also submitted an applicant-prepared
Draft Environmental Assessment that was prepared during the Pre-Filing
Process that was included with this application. Now, as of the filing
of this application on June 11, 2010, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for
this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket Nos. CP10-457-000 and CP10-458-000, as noted in the
caption of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right

to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 20, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16393 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57029-57031]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0107]

Qualification of Drivers; Application for Exemptions; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 10
individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualifications
standard concerning hearing for interstate drivers. The current
regulation prohibits hearing impaired individuals from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce. After notice and opportunity for public
comment, the Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these
drivers to operate property-carrying CMVs will provide a level of
safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety
maintained without the exemptions. The exemptions are valid for a 2-
year period and may be renewed, and the exemptions preempt State laws
and regulations.

DATES: The exemptions are effective September 21, 2015. The exemptions
expire on September 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety, (202)

366-4001<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov and/or 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., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking 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
www.dot.gov/privacy.

B. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds ``such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 2-year period. The current provisions of the FMCSRs
concerning hearing state that a person is physically qualified to drive
a CMV if that person:

    First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at
not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if
tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average
hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz,
1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the
audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard
(formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.

49 CFR 391.41(b)(11). This standard was adopted in 1970, with a
revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard
while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36
FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    FMCSA grants 10 individuals an exemption from Sec.  391.41(b)(11)
concerning hearing to enable them to operate property-carrying CMVs in
interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The Agency's decision on these
exemption applications is based on the current medical literature and
information and the ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety'' (the 2008 Evidence Report)
presented to FMCSA on August 26, 2008. The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the CDLIS,\1\
for CDL holders, and inspections recorded in MCMIS.\2\ For non-CDL
holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
licensing agency. Each applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving
history. The Agency believes the drivers covered by the exemptions do
not pose a risk to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) is an
information system that allows the exchange of commercial driver
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the
databases of 51 licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central Site,
all connected by a telecommunications network.
    \2\ Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is an
information system that captures data from field offices through
SAFETYNET, CAPRI, and other sources. It is a source for FMCSA
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments

    On February 4, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications and requested public comment on 10 individuals
(FR 80 6161; Docket number FMCSA-2015-02134). The comment period ended
on March 6, 2015. In response to this notice, two comments were
received; one in support of drivers wearing hearing aids while driving
and one expressing safety concerns for the far reaching ramifications
to the commercial driving industry of allowing deaf drivers to test,
train and/or drive commercially. The Transportation Companies expressed
concern for process by which exemptions are granted from parts of 49
CFR 391.41, the increased volume of exemptions, and the need to rely on
scientific support as a basis for granting the exemptions. FMCSA
acknowledges these concerns and may consider in the future, the initial
steps to a formal rulemaking process to revise unnecessary physical
qualification standards.

D. Exemptions Granted

    Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications,
FMCSA grants exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to 10 individuals.
Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 10 drivers receiving
exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) would have been considered
physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that
they do not meet the hearing requirement. FMCSA has determined that the
following 10 applicants should be granted an exemption:

Thomas J. Bertling

    Mr. Bertling, 58, holds Class A commercial driver's license (CDL)
in Oregon.

Molly R. Bergstrom

    Ms. Bergstrom, 37, holds an operator's license in Iowa.

John Luegene Huey, Jr.

    Mr. Huey, 50, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in
Texas.

Jesus L. Javier

    Mr. Javier, 24, holds an operator's license in New Jersey.

Paul Robert Langlois

    Mr. Langlois, 36, holds an operator's license in Ohio.

Samuel E. Lovley

    Mr. Lovley, 32, holds an operator's license in Pennsylvania.

Scott M. Putman

    Mr. Putman, 35, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL)
in Pennsylvania.

Laird Lamont Smith

    Mr. Smith, 59, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL) in
Utah.

Kirk A. Soneson

    Mr. Soneson, 48, holds an operator's license in Ohio.

Christopher King Warner

    Mr. Warner, 50, holds a Class A commercial driver's license (CDL)
in New York.

Basis for Exemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. With the exemption, applicants can
drive in

interstate commerce. Thus, the Agency's analysis focuses on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce. The driver
must comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption. This
includes reporting any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5
and reporting all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses
under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391.

Conclusion

    The Agency is granting exemptions from the hearing standard, 49 CFR
391.41(b)(11), to 10 individuals based on an evaluation of each
driver's safety experience. Safety analysis of information relating to
these 10 applicants meets the burden of showing that granting the
exemptions would achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or
greater than the level that would be achieved without the exemption. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for 2
years from the effective date with annual recertification required
unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the
following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    FMCSA exempts the following 10 drivers for a period of 2 years from
the physical qualification standard concerning hearing: Thomas J.
Bertling (OR); Molly R. Bergstrom (IA); John Luegene Huey, Jr. (TX);
Jesus L. Javier (NJ); Paul Robert Langlois (OH); Samuel E. Lovley (PA);
Scott M. Putman (PA); Laird Lamont Smith (UT); Kirk A. Soneson (OH);
and Christopher King Warner (NY).

    Issued on: September 8, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-23591 Filed 9-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 15)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3863-3867]
[DOCID:fr23ja08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25609; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-263-AD;
Amendment 39-15335; AD 2008-02-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes Equipped With Rolls-Royce RB211-TRENT 800 Series Engines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD
requires revising the airplane flight manual to provide the

flightcrew with new ground procedures for shedding core ice during long
taxi periods in freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or less. For
airplanes unable to perform the shedding procedure after prolonged
taxiing in freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or less, this AD
requires certain investigative and corrective actions. This AD results
from reports of engine surges and internal engine damage due to ice
accumulation during extended idle thrust operation in ground fog icing
conditions. We are issuing this AD to prevent internal engine damage
due to ice accumulation and shedding, which could cause a shutdown of
both engines, and result in a forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 27, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

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: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6500; 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 certain Boeing Model
777-200 and -300 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on August 18, 2006 (71 FR 47754). That NPRM proposed
to require revising the airplane flight manual to provide the
flightcrew with new ground procedures for shedding core ice during long
taxi periods in freezing fog. For airplanes unable to perform the
shedding procedure after prolonged taxiing in freezing fog, that NPRM
proposed to require certain investigative and corrective actions.

Comments

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

Requests To Reduce Visibility Requirements

    Boeing, Rolls-Royce, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
and Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of American Airlines,
all request that we reduce the visibility requirements during a ground
fog icing encounter. The commenters request that the current 1,000-
meter or less visibility requirements be reduced to 300-meters or less
visibility. Rolls-Royce has performed an analysis based on atmospheric
data and service experience that demonstrates that freezing fog
presents a threat to the engine only when the visibility drops below
300 meters; EASA has accepted this analysis. Boeing states that this
change will minimize the need for the run-up to only those freezing fog
conditions that are severe enough to pose a risk.
    We agree with the commenters. Sufficient data have been presented
to the FAA to justify a reduction from the 1,000-meter visibility
requirement to a 300-meter visibility requirement. We have revised the
statement in the Summary section, and paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of
the final rule to state ``in freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters
or less.''

Requests To Remove Specific Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task
References, and To Refer to Current Procedures

    Boeing, Rolls-Royce, and ATA, on behalf of its members Delta
Airlines and American Airlines, request that we refer to the Boeing 777
AMM for the de-icing procedures, rather than specific changes in the
AMM. Rolls-Royce points out that the specified tasks are only examples
of an acceptable inspection method; referring to a specific task/issue
of the AMM in an AD will lead to many requests for alternative methods
of compliance (AMOCs) from operators after AMM revisions. ATA states
that the specific tasks do not exist in the AMM available to one of its
members.
    In addition, Boeing, Rolls-Royce, and American Airlines state that
the AMM procedures for doing the engine core de-icing (referred to in
paragraph (h) of the NPRM) are outdated. The commenters explain that
Rolls-Royce and Boeing did testing to determine the best way to conduct
the procedure, and that the best solution is included in the latest AMM
procedure. The commenters state that this is another example of why we
should not refer to specific AMM tasks in the AD.
    For the stated reasons, we agree with the commenters that we should
refer to the Boeing 777 AMM, rather than specific tasks. Therefore, we
have changed paragraphs (h) and (h)(2) of the AD to specify that
Chapter 12-33-03 of the Boeing 777 AMM, rather than the specific tasks,
provides acceptable methods of compliance. We also added a statement to
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD indicating that the temperature of the air
supplied cannot exceed 176 degrees Fahrenheit at any time during the
manual de-ice process. Air that exceeds 176 degrees Fahrenheit can
damage the engine.

Requests To Clarify Borescope Inspection Requirements

    Boeing and Rolls-Royce request that we clarify and revise the
requirements for the borescope inspection, and that we specify
inspecting the intermediate pressure compressor (IPC) blades unless
damage indicates that material has been released. The commenters state
that inspection of other compressor stages would be necessary if the
material has been released. Rolls-Royce explains that if no material
has been released from the IPC stage 1 blades then there will be no
secondary damage to the high pressure compressor (HPC), so inspection
is not required. If material is missing from the IPC stage 1, the
engine must have a full borescope inspection of both the IPC and the
HPC. Damage to the IPC stage 1 blades without material release would be
treated under the current AMM acceptance limits. Boeing and Rolls-Royce
state that the borescope procedure to look for damage is conducted
routinely by the airlines, and that it is not necessary to mandate the
current borescoping method in the AMM.
    We agree with the requests to clarify the borescope inspection
procedures. The risk of engine failure is a direct result of HPC
damage; if there is no material released from the IPC stage 1 blades,
then there will be no resulting damage to the HPC. We have revised
paragraph (i) of the AD to clarify the borescope procedures and to
specify that Chapter 72-00-00 of the Boeing 777 AMM is one approved
method for complying with the requirements of that paragraph. We
acknowledge that the borescope procedure is conducted routinely by the
airlines; however, an AD must specify a method of compliance for all
required actions and, in cases where there is no relevant

service bulletin as with this AD, we generally point to the AMM as an
acceptable method of compliance.

Request To Place Core Ice Shedding Procedures in Operations Manual

    Vincent Crow, a private citizen, would like to have the core ice
shedding procedures (described in paragraph (f) of the NPRM) as a part
of Operations Manual Volume 1 (OMV1) as a supplementary procedure in
the adverse weather section. Paragraph (f) of the NPRM specifies
publishing these procedures in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) as a
certification limitation.
    We disagree with the request to publish the procedures in OMV1.
OMV1 is not approved or mandated by the FAA. The AFM limitations are
approved and mandated by the FAA. In addition, all limitations in the
AFM are required to be incorporated into the operations manual. We have
not changed the AD in this regard.

Requests To Withdraw NPRM

    Boeing, and ATA, on behalf of its member American Airlines, state
that the NPRM is unnecessary because the freezing fog procedure
(paragraph (f) of the NPRM) is already included in the FAA-approved AFM
Limitations section.
    We infer that the commenters would like us to withdraw the NPRM. We
do not agree. Although the AFM has been revised to reflect the proposed
requirements in the NPRM, the operators are not required to adopt the
latest revision of the AFM. Therefore, the procedures in paragraph (f)
of the NPRM would not be required unless we take AD action. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Address Risk of Sliding When Power Is Advanced

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is concerned that
the environmental conditions that cause the engine core icing could
also cause the taxiway surface to become icy and slippery, thereby
increasing the risk of the airplane sliding off the taxiway or into
another airplane when the crew advances the power to shed the core ice.
    We infer that the NTSB would like us to add procedures to the AD to
require actions that do not involve advancing engine power. We disagree
that the procedures will result in the airplane sliding. The procedures
mandated by the AD were developed with a reduced thrust setting to
minimize the potential for sliding. Based on discussions with
operators, we understand that the pilot will locate the airplane in a
safe place to do the run-ups. We have addressed the possibility of the
pilot not being able to perform the engine run-up by allowing operators
to manually de-ice before takeoff, or to take off with the subsequent
requirement of a borescope inspection. We have not changed the AD in
this regard.

Request To Redesign the Engine

    The NTSB suggests that, in the long term, the FAA require that
engines be modified so that the airfoil surfaces where ice is building
up are heated to prevent the buildup. The NTSB notes that early-
generation gas turbine engines had inlet guide vanes that were
pneumatically heated to prevent the formation of ice. The NTSB goes on
to say that several safety recommendations have been issued concerning
ice buildup on the stationary parts of the engine, causing engine core
damage when shed.
    We disagree with the suggestion to require modification to the
engines to prevent ice buildup during extended exposure to ground fog
icing. The Trent 800 series engine would require extensive testing and
redesign to add additional anti-ice capability. History has shown that
the frequency of ground icing encounters are rare and it would not be
cost effective to redesign the engine given that there are operational
procedures that adequately address the unsafe condition. The NTSB
refers to safety recommendations that were issued as a result of dual
engine high-altitude flameouts from ice buildup on the engine core.
While extended exposure to ground fog icing does cause ice buildup in
the engine core, the requirement of periodic engine speed run-ups is
consistent with other ground-based icing operational procedures. We
have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Include Costs of Run-Up, Manual De-Ice, and Borescope

    Boeing requests that we include the cost of disruption to the
airline when a run-up, manual de-ice, or borescope inspection is
needed. Boeing points out that the AD mandates the procedure, and if
the operator conducts the procedure it will require delay, and possibly
maintenance action.
    We disagree with the request to include these costs in the Costs of
Compliance section. We recognize that this AD may impose certain
additional operational costs. However, we cannot calculate those costs
because we do not know how often the conditions occur and what
additional time is necessary. Continued operational safety necessitates
the imposition of these costs because of the severity of the unsafe
condition. In addition, the cost analysis in AD actions typically does
not include incidental costs such as the time required to gain access
and close up, time necessary for planning, or time necessitated by
other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary
significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. We
have not changed the AD in this regard.

Requests To Provide Terminating Action

    Boeing and Rolls-Royce request that we provide a clear terminating
action for the actions proposed in the NPRM. Boeing states that the AD
should be considered complied with and closed once the procedure to
perform the engine run-up is inserted in the AFM. Boeing points out
that the engine procedures for inspecting for ice and manually de-icing
should be part of the airlines' approved de-ice/anti-ice procedures,
and like the wing de-ice procedures, the methods to accomplish them are
not mandated by AD. Boeing and Rolls-Royce both suggest adding
information to paragraph (g) of the NPRM that would specify that, once
the procedures are incorporated into the operator's approved ground de-
icing/anti-icing program, the AD should be considered complied with.
    We disagree with the need to add terminating action to paragraph
(g) of the AD. The Limitations section in the AFM includes maintenance
actions that are not performed by the flightcrew and cannot be required
without an AD. As discussed above, Boeing and Rolls-Royce do not plan
to make an engine or airplane configuration change that would eliminate
the need for the AFM and maintenance procedures mandated by this AD,
and thus provide terminating action. We have not changed the AD in this
regard.

Requests To Specify Lack of Events With Trent 800

    Boeing and Rolls-Royce ask that we clarify the summary and
paragraph (d) of the NPRM to specify that Trent 800 series engines (the
subject of the proposed AD) have not experienced engine surges and
internal engine damage due to ice accumulation during extended idle
thrust operation in ground fog icing conditions.
    We acknowledge that Trent 800 series engines have not experienced
the stated events, as described in the ``Discussion'' and ``Similar
Engine Models'' sections of the NPRM. As stated in the preamble of the
NPRM, both the Trent 700 series engines and the Trent 800 series
engines have a similar compressor design, and

therefore may be subject to the same unsafe condition. We find that
this information need not be added to the AD Summary section, or to any
regulatory paragraphs of the AD.

Request To Clarify Paragraphs (f) and (h) of the NPRM

    EASA requests that we clarify the wording of the AFM revision by
revising the phrase ``there is no run-up procedure'' in paragraph (f)
(sub-paragraph (c) of the AFM revision) of the NPRM to state, instead,
``do not carry out a run-up.'' In that same paragraph, EASA also
requests that we add after ``then manually de-ice the engines'' the
phrase ``or confirm ice is not present in the engine core before
further flight.'' EASA also requests that we add ``or 60 minutes since
the last run-up'' after the phrase ``if take-off is not accomplished in
freezing fog within 60 minutes total taxi time'' in paragraph (h) of
the NPRM.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. However, we do not agree
that it is necessary to revise the phrase as specified. After 60
minutes, there is no run-up procedure that will shed the ice. As a
clarification, we have revised the AFM wording specified in paragraph
(f) of the AD to read ``Takeoff is not permitted if total taxi time in
freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or less exceeds 60 minutes
without accomplishing the above core ice shed procedure. The engine
core must be manually de-iced'' instead of ``If takeoff is not
accomplished within 60 minutes total taxi time, then manually de-ice
the engines.''

Explanation of Revised Unsafe Condition

    We have revised the unsafe condition to state that internal engine
damage could result in a forced landing rather than in loss of control
of the airplane. Upon further review of the regulations, we determined
that a power loss in this case does not leave the airplane
uncontrollable, but rather leads to a forced landing.

Explanation of Revised AMOC Paragraph

    We have removed paragraph (j)(3) of the NPRM. That paragraph refers
to alternative repair methods, and this AD does not include a repair.

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

    There are about 208 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 53 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions take about 1 work hour 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 $4,240, or $80 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, 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):

2008-02-05 Boeing: Amendment 39-15335. Docket No. FAA-2006-25609;
Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-263-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective February 27, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 777-200 and -300 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Rolls-Royce
RB211 TRENT 800 engines.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of engine surges and internal
engine damage due to ice accumulation during extended idle thrust
operation in ground fog icing conditions. We are issuing this AD to
prevent internal engine damage due to ice accumulation and shedding,
which could cause a shutdown of both engines, and result in a forced
landing 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.

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    (f) Within 14 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the Limitations Section of the Boeing 777 Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM) to include the following statements. This may be done by
inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.

``GROUND OPERATIONS IN FREEZING FOG WITH VISIBILITY OF 300 METERS OR
LESS

    When freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or less is
reported and
    (a) The OAT is 0 degrees C to -6 degrees C then run up the
engines to 50% N1 for 1 minute every 45 minutes taxi time, or
    (b) The OAT is -7 degrees C to -13 degrees C then run up the
engines to 59% N1 for 1 minute for every 45 minutes taxi time, or

    (c) The OAT is colder than -13 degrees C and taxi time exceeds
45 minutes, there is no run-up procedure; the engines must be
manually de-iced.
    Regardless of temperature, if the core ice shedding procedure
described above is not accomplished within 45 minutes total taxi
time in freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or less, but
takeoff can be achieved within 60 minutes total taxi time in
freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or less, takeoff is
permitted. A borescope inspection is required within 10 flights.
Takeoff is not permitted if total taxi time in freezing fog with
visibility of 300 meters or less exceeds 60 minutes without
accomplishing the above core ice shed procedure. The engine core
must be manually de-iced.''

    (g) When a statement identical to that in paragraph (f) of this
AD has been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the
general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this
AD may be removed from the AFM.

Inspection for Ice

    (h) If takeoff is not accomplished in freezing fog, with
visibility of 300 meters or less, within 60 minutes total taxi time,
before further flight, perform an inspection for ice of the variable
inlet guide vanes (VIGVs), inspect the low pressure compressor (fan)
for ice, and ensure that all fan, spinner, air intake splitter
fairing, and VIGV surfaces are free of ice after engine operation in
freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or less, in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO). One acceptable method of compliance is
Chapter 12-33-03 of the Boeing 777 Airplane Maintenance Manual
(AMM).
    (1) If no ice is detected, the time already completed in
freezing conditions can be reset to zero for subsequent operation.
    (2) If any ice is detected, before further flight, manually de-
ice the engine core inlet. Upon completion of the manual de-ice
process, the fan, spinner, air intake splitter fairing, and VIGV
surfaces must be free of ice and all residual water removed. Two
acceptable methods to manually de-ice the engine can be found in
Chapter 12-33-03 of the Boeing 777 AMM. At no time during the manual
de-ice process should the temperature of the air supplied exceed 176
degrees Fahrenheit.

Borescope Inspection for Damage

    (i) For airplanes on which the core ice shedding procedure is
not accomplished within 45 minutes total taxi time, but that achieve
takeoff within 60 minutes total taxi time in freezing fog with
visibility of 300 meters or less, regardless of temperature during
ground operations in freezing fog with visibility of 300 meters or
less: Within 10 flight cycles after takeoff, perform a borescope
inspection to detect missing material of the intermediate pressure
compressor (IPC) stage 1 blades. If any material is found to be
missing, do a full borescope inspection of the IPC and high pressure
compressor (HPC) before further flight. Do the actions in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA. One acceptable method of compliance
is to perform all applicable borescope inspections in accordance
with Chapter 72-00-00 of the Boeing 777 AMM. If any damage is
detected, further action in accordance with the current AMM limits
must be taken before further flight.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 10, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-843 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P