[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63171-63172]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0034]

Subpart A (``General Provisions'') and Subpart B (``Confined and
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard
Employment''); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in 29 CFR part 1915,
subpart A (``General Provisions'') and subpart B (``Confined and
Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard
Employment'').

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
December 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0034,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0034) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The following is a description of the requirements in subparts A
and B that pertain to the collection and retention of information.
    One provision in subpart A contains paperwork requirements (Sec.
1915.7). Section 1915.7(b)(2) specifies that shipyard employers must
maintain a roster of designated competent persons (for inspecting and
testing spaces covered by subpart B), or a statement that a Marine
Chemist will perform these inspections and tests. Section 1915.7(d)
requires employers to ensure that competent persons, Marine Chemists,
and certified industrial hygienists (CIHs) make a record of each
inspection and test they conduct, post the record near the covered
space while work is in progress, and file the record for at least three
months. In addition, employers must make the roster or statement and
the inspection and test records available for inspection by designated
parties.
    Subpart B consists of several standards governing entry into
confined and enclosed spaces and other dangerous atmospheres in
shipyard employment. These standards require that employers:
     Ensure that competent persons conduct inspections and
atmospheric testing prior to workers entering a confined or enclosed
space (Sec. Sec.  1915.12(a)-(c));
     Warn workers not to enter hazardous spaces and other
dangerous atmospheres (Sec. Sec.  1915.12 (a)-(c) and Sec.  1915.16);
     Certify that workers who will be entering confined or
enclosed spaces have been trained (Sec.  1915.12(d)(5));
     Establish and train shipyard rescue teams or arrange for
outside rescue teams and provide them with information (Sec.
1915.12(e));
     Ensure that one person on each rescue team maintains a
current first aid training certification (Sec.  1915.12(e));
     Exchange information regarding hazards, safety rules, and
emergency procedures concerning these spaces and atmospheres with other
employers whose workers may enter these same spaces (Sec.  1915.12(f));
     Ensure testing of spaces containing or having contained
combustible or flammable liquids or gases, or solids that are toxic,
corrosive, or irritating and other dangerous atmospheres, boundaries or
pipelines before cleaning and other cold work is started and as
necessary thereafter while the operations are ongoing (Sec. Sec.
1915.13(b)(2) and (4));

     Post signs prohibiting ignition sources within or near a
space that contains bulk quantities of flammable or combustible liquids
or gases (Sec.  1915.13(b)(10));
     Ensure that confined and enclosed spaces are tested before
workers perform hot work in these work areas (Sec.  1915.14(a));
     Post warnings of testing conducted by competent persons
and certificates of testing conducted by a Marine Chemist or Coast
Guard authorized person in the immediate vicinity of the hot-work
operation while the operation is in progress (Sec. Sec.  1915.14(a) and
(b)); and
     Retain certificates of testing on file for at least three
months after completing the operation (Sec.  1915.14(a)(2)).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection
of information (paperwork) requirements mandated by Subpart A
(``General Provisions'') and Subpart B (``Confined and Enclosed Spaces
and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment'') of 29 CFR
part 1915. The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase of 26,220
burden hours (from 312,764 to 338,984 hours). The adjustment increase
is due to an increase in the number of establishments affected by these
standards.
    The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to
this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Subpart A (``General Provisions'') and Subpart B (``Confined
and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in Shipyard
Employment'') (29 CFR part 1915).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0011.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
organizations; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 2,759.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 2,098,172.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from one minute (.02 hour) for an
employer to maintain a training certificate to 10 minutes (.17 hour) to
develop and maintain a roster of competent persons to perform required
inspections and tests.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 338,984.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0034) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 17, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-25147 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Evaluation of 2002 Multi-pollutant Platform:  Air Toxics, Ozone, and
Particulate Matter

Sharon Phillips, Kai Wang, Carey Jang, Norm Possiel, Madeleine Strum,
and Tyler Fox

Main Contact:  Sharon Phillips, Air Quality Modeling Group, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, MD: D243-01, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, RTP, NC  27711

E-mail:   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ABSTRACT

An annual 2002 multi-pollutant model application and evaluation study
was performed for the continental United States using a multi-pollutant
version of the U.S. EPA’s Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ)
modeling system at grid resolutions of 36-km continental U.S. and 12-km
Eastern U.S.  The CMAQ multi-pollutant v4.6.1 was developed to predict
ozone, particulate matter, mercury, and 38 other hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) within one model simulation.  The focus of this effort
is the evaluation of model predictions of toxics species (including
metals) and mercury deposition using 2002 measured data.  Model
evaluation results for ozone, PM2.5 component species and precursor
gases, and deposition of sulfate and nitrate will also be presented.
Based on the 36-km and 12-km 2002 simulations, sulfate predictions
compare very well with measurements over the summer months in the
eastern U.S. where sulfate is the dominant PM2.5 species.  The model
appears to simulate the total nitrate (nitrate PM and nitric acid, HNO3)
fairly well, but the partitioning between nitrate PM and HNO3 leads to
modest scatter in predictions of nitrate PM.  Hourly and eight-hour
maximum ozone model performance shows good agreement with ambient
measurements during the ozone season (May, June, July, August, and
September).  Model performance for some non-ubiquitous HAPs shows a
general under-prediction tendency.  This paper will discuss HAP model
performance in terms of:  (1) uncertainties in monitoring methods, (2)
limited measurements in time and space to characterize ambient
concentrations, (3) commensurability issues between measurements and
model predictions, (4) HAP monitoring issues, (3) HAP inventory issues,
and/or (4) boundary conditions, emissions, and science uncertainty
issues.  This paper will also examine model predictions to gain a better
understanding of the chemical and physical interactions between
concentration and deposition of ozone, PM2.5 component species, toxic
species, and precursor gases (including gaseous toxics) as well as their
temporal and spatial relationships and the extent that model performance
varies between the 36-km versus 12-km simulations.


[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32460-32465]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898; FRL-8398-5]
RIN 2070-AB27

Dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide and Thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-
3-hexyl-; Significant New Use Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing significant new use rules (SNURs) under section
5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for two chemical
substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). The
two substances are dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide (CAS No. 4080-
98-2; PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555) and thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl-
(CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283). Today's action requires persons
who intend to manufacture, import, or process either of these two
substances for a use that is designated as a significant new use by
this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that
activity. EPA believes that this action is necessary because these
chemical substances may be hazardous to human health and the
environment. The required notification would provide EPA with the
opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit
or limit that activity before it occurs.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 7, 2009

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Karen Chu, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
import, process, or use either of the chemical substances contained in
this rule: Dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide (CAS No. 4080-98-2;
PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555) and thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS
No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283). Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to:
     Manufacturers, importers, or processors of one or more
subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325

and 324110), e.g., Chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 721.5. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing
import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Persons
who import any chemical substance governed by a final SNUR are subject
to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification
requirements and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through
12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Those persons must certify that the shipment
of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders
under TSCA, including any SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support
of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In
addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical
substance that is the subject of this rule are subject to the export
notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see
40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export notification
requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is finalizing SNURs under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA for two
chemical substances which were the subject of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). The two substances are dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide
(CAS No. 4080-98-2; PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555) and thiophene, 2,5-
dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283). This action
requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process either
of these two substances for an activity that is designated as a
significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing that activity.
    Previously, in the Federal Register of September 19, 2007 (72 FR
53470) (FRL-8135-8), EPA issued direct final SNURs on these two
substances (see 40 CFR 721.10057 and 721.10088). However, EPA received
notices of intent to submit adverse comments on these SNURs. Therefore,
as required by 40 CFR 721.170(d)(4)(i)(B), EPA withdrew the direct
final SNURs on these two substances and subsequently proposed SNURs
under notice and comment procedures (June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32508) (FRL-
8351-4)). The record for the direct final and proposed SNURs for these
substances was established as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898. That record
includes information considered by the Agency in developing the direct
final rule and this final rule including comments on the direct final
and proposed rules.
    EPA received no comments regarding the proposed SNUR on
dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide (CAS No. 4080-98-2; PMNs P-01-759
and P-05-555) and is finalizing the rule as proposed. Significant new
use designations for this substance are summarized as follows: Use of
the substance without 1) workers wearing gloves, 2) workers wearing a
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved
full-face respirator with an assigned protection factor (APF) of at
least 50, and 3) appropriate hazard communication. See the proposed
rule for a complete discussion of the basis for EPA's action, including
hazard concerns for the substance and recommended testing.
    EPA received comments from Plextronics, the submitter of the PMN on
thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283)
(Ref. 1). A discussion of EPA's response to these comments is included
in Unit V. Based on these comments, EPA is issuing a modified final
rule on this substance that (1) retains the proposed maximum surface
water concentration limit trigger of 1 part per billion (ppb) from
manufacturing, processing, and use, and (2) raises the annual company
manufacture and import volume limit trigger from 500 kilograms to 4,500
kilograms.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once
EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new
use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)) requires persons
to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days
before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for
that use. Persons who must submit a SNUN are described in 40 CFR 721.5.

C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721, subpart
A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping
requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability
of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final
rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700.
According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must
comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures
as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular,
these requirements include the information submission requirements of
TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA
section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40
CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action
under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities on
which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is
required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its
reasons for not taking action.
    Persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance
identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export
notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that
interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
Persons who import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are
subject to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements,
codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Such
persons must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance
complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA, including any
SNUR requirements. The EPA policy statement in support of the import
certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B.

III. Rationale and Objectives of the Rule

A. Rationale

    During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substances
that are subject to these SNURs, EPA determined that one or more of the
criteria of concern established at 40 CFR 721.170 were met. For a
discussion of the rationale for the SNUR on dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-
dihydrazide

(CAS No. 4080-98-2; PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555), see Unit III. of the
direct final SNUR (September 19, 2007 (72 FR 53470)) and Unit IV. of
the proposed SNUR (June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32508)). For a discussion of the
rationale for the SNUR on thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No.
116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283), see Units IV. and V. of this document, as
well as Unit III. of the direct final SNUR (September 19, 2007 (72 FR
53470)) and Unit IV. of the proposed SNUR (June 9, 2008 (73 FR 32508)).

B. Objectives

    EPA is issuing these SNURs for specific chemical substances which
have undergone premanufacture review because the Agency wants to
achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new
uses designated in this rule:
     EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to
manufacture, import, or process a listed chemical substance for the
described significant new use before that activity begins.
     EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data
submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing,
importing, or processing a listed chemical substance for the described
significant new use.
     EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers,
importers, or processors of a listed chemical substance before the
described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs,
provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e),
5(f), 6, or 7.

IV. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use
of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after
consideration of all relevant factors including:
     The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use changes the type or form of
exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and
duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
     The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a
chemical substance.
    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2),
the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
    EPA's decision to designate a maximum surface water concentration
of 1 ppb as a significant new use for thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl-
(CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283) primarily reflects consideration of
the third and fourth factors listed in the bulleted items in Unit IV.
Based on structure activity relationship analyses for thiophenes, EPA
is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at
concentrations above 1 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters.
Initial review of the PMN showed that releases of the PMN substance to
surface waters from manufacturing, processing, and use of the PMN
substance at sites other than those identified in the PMN that have
less protective management practices could result in surface water
concentrations above 1 ppb for more than 20 days per year, thereby
presenting a chronic risk to aquatic organisms (Ref. 2). Additionally,
the substance is expected to significantly bioaccumulate (Ref. 5).
    EPA's decision to also designate an annual manufacture and import
volume of 4,500 kilograms as a significant new use for thiophene, 2,5-
dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283) reflects
consideration of the first factor, the projected volume of
manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance. The use of
thiophene and its derivatives in electronic applications is escalating.
Plextronics' website indicates the technology involving this substance
1) is capable of ``commercial-scale manufacturability,'' and 2) that
the market for such ``printed electronics was approximately $1 billion
in 2006 and is expected to exceed $300 billion within 20 years'' (Ref.
3). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that use of the substance may grow
significantly beyond the 3rd-year estimate in the PMN and that those
higher manufacture and import volumes would result in increased
environmental exposure to the PMN substance.

V. Response to Comments on Proposed SNUR on Thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-
hexyl-

    EPA received comments from the submitter, Plextronics, on the
proposed SNUR for thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-11-0;
PMN P-07-283) (Ref. 1). A discussion of the comments and the Agency's
responses follows.
    Comment 1: EPA's structure activity relationship analysis is not
supported by valid test data on analogous substances.
    Response: EPA's Structure Activity Relationships (SARs) predictions
for thiophenes are supported by scientifically valid ecotoxicity test
results on algae, daphnia, and fish on multiple thiophene substances
(Ref. 4). For example, the measured daphnid chronic value was 1.8 parts
per million (ppm) for one thiophene substance, whose chemical identity
was claimed as TSCA confidential business information. The measured log
octanol/water partition coefficient (log Kow) value for this
CBI substance was 1.7. The difference between the measured toxicity
values supporting the thiophene SARs and the predicted chronic aquatic
concentration of concern of 1 ppb for thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl is
almost completely due to differences in their measured or estimated log
Kow values. This is especially the case at relatively high
log Kow values. The estimated log Kow for
thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl is 6.6.
    Importantly, because the toxicity of chemical classes converge at
log Kow values of 5-8, the 1 ppb level is also supported by
use of neutral organic SARs, which are supported by many valid test
data points (Ref. 4). The predicted chronic concentration of concern
for thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl (CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283)
using neutral organic SARs is also 1 ppb. Thus, based on this further
examination of the data and calculations regarding the aquatic toxicity
of the substance, the Agency finds that the PMN substance meets the
concern criteria at Sec.  721.170(b)(4)(iii) as well as the concern
criteria at Sec.  721.170(b)(4)(ii), which was indicated in the
previous direct final rule and proposed rule on the substance.
    Comment 2: The rulemaking record does not contain information
indicating that release of the substance may present an unreasonable
risk, i.e., result in surface water concentrations above the 1 ppb
concentration of concern, at an annual production volume of 500
kilograms or greater. Therefore, the Agency has not justified the need
for a production volume limit.
    Response: Congress did not require in TSCA that EPA must find that
a significant new use may present unreasonable risk. Rather, TSCA
section 5(a)(2) requires only that EPA ``consider all relevant
factors'' when promulgating a SNUR. According to 40 CFR 721.170(a), EPA
may issue significant new use notification and recordkeeping
requirements if EPA determines that ``activities other than those in
the premanufacture notice may result in significant changes in human
exposure or environment release levels and/or concern exists about the
substance's health or environmental effects'' (also see 40 CFR
721.170(c)(2)). As discussed

in Unit IV., it is reasonable to expect that use of the substance may
grow significantly beyond the 3rd-year estimate stated in the PMN and
that higher production volumes will result in increased environmental
exposure to the PMN substance. Also, EPA has hazard concerns for the
substance; the Agency has determined that the substance may be highly
toxic to aquatic organisms and meets the concern criterion at Sec.
721.170(b)(4)(ii) and Sec.  721.170(b)(4)(iii). Receipt of a SNUN
allows EPA to review and assess potential risks that might be presented
by significant new use activities.
    Additionally, the EPA exposure report in the docket that predicts
low concern for aquatic toxicity effects at the stated PMN production
volume reflects surface water concentration estimates based on the
site, operations, and management practices identified in the PMN and
subsequent submitter correspondence. Initial review of the PMN showed
that manufacturing, processing, and use of the PMN at sites other than
those identified in the PMN that have less protective management
practices could result in releases of the substance that would result
in surface water concentrations above 1 ppb for more than 20 days per
year (Ref. 2). This difference in risk estimates based on site and
management practices further supports the Agency's concerns regarding
the chemical substance and the basis for this SNUR.
    Comment 3: Designation of both annual production (i.e., manufacture
and import) volume and water release triggers as a significant new use
is unjustified.
    Response: EPA respectfully disagrees. Unit IV. contains the
justifications for the water release and production volume significant
new use triggers. Surface water concentration and production volume
each may make an independent contribution to risk. This is because
production volume can be highly related to exposure even where surface
water concentration remains the same. The Agency currently uses the
industry-provided, 3rd-year production volume estimate in the PMN to
assess the potential environmental and health effects of a new
chemical. Thus, if EPA has reason to believe that the production volume
for a substance of concern could significantly surpass that designated
in the PMN for the first three years of manufacture, EPA will consider
taking regulatory action and designating some production volume as a
significant new use.
    Comment 4: If a production (i.e., manufacture and import) volume
limit is justified, it should be set at a significant level above the
3rd-year volume in the PMN and also be set at a level where the
recommended testing is economically feasible.
    Response: In consideration of the comments received on the proposed
SNUR, expected market growth, and review of analogous substances, EPA
is raising the annual company production volume limit in the final SNUR
to 4,500 kilograms. EPA views this volume as significantly different
from the 3rd-year production volume estimate in the PMN. Notably, in
designating this volume as a significant new use, EPA is not trying to
predict or imply at what volume a risk could occur or to estimate at
what aggregate volume would any recommended testing on the substance be
economically feasible.

VI. Applicability of Rule to Uses Occurring Before Effective Date of
the Final Rule

    As discussed in the Federal Register of April 24, 1990 (55 FR
17376), EPA has decided that the intent of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) is
best served by designating a use as a significant new use as of the
date of publication of the proposed SNUR rather than as of the
effective date of the final rule. If uses begun after publication of
the proposed SNUR were considered ongoing, rather than new, it would be
difficult for EPA to establish SNUR notice requirements because a
person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the proposed significant new
use before the rule became effective, and then argue that the use was
ongoing as of the effective date of the final rule.
    Any person who began commercial manufacture, import, or processing
of dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide (CAS No. 4080-98-2; PMNs P-01-
759 and P-05-555) or thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-
11-0; PMN P-07-283) for any of the significant new uses designated in
the proposed SNUR after the date of publication of the proposed SNUR
must stop that activity before the effective date of this rule. Persons
who ceased those activities will have to meet all SNUR notice
requirements and wait until the end of the notification review period,
including all extensions, before engaging in any activities designated
as significant new uses. If, however, persons who began manufacture,
import, or processing of either of these chemical substances between
the date of publication of the proposed SNUR and the effective date of
this final SNUR meet the conditions of advance compliance as codified
at 40 CFR 721.45(h), those persons would be considered to have met the
final SNUR requirements for those activities.

VII. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require developing any
particular test data before submission of a SNUN (except where the
chemical substance subject to the SNUN is also subject to a section 4
test rule). Persons are required only to submit test data in their
possession or control and to describe any other data known to or
reasonably ascertainable by them (40 CFR 721.25(a) and 720.50.)
However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to
require appropriate testing. Unit III. of the proposed rule (June 9,
2008 (73 FR 32508)) lists recommended testing for these two substances.
Descriptions of tests are provided for informational purposes. EPA
strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult
with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection. Many test guidelines
are now available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/
guidelin.htm.
    The recommended tests may not be the only means of addressing the
potential risks of the chemical substance. However, SNUNs submitted for
significant new uses without any test data may increase the likelihood
that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e), particularly if
satisfactory test results have not been obtained from a prior
submitter. EPA recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact EPA
early enough so that they will be able to conduct the appropriate
tests.
    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to
evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:
     Human exposure and environmental release that may result
from the significant new use of the chemical substances.
     Potential benefits of the chemical substances.
     Information on risks posed by the chemical substances
compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

VIII. SNUN Submissions

    SNUNs must be mailed to the Environmental Protection Agency, OPPT
Document Control Office (7407M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. Information must be submitted in the form
and manner set forth in EPA Form No. 7710-25. This form is available
from the Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001 (see 40 CFR 721.25 and 720.40).
Forms

and information are also available electronically at http://
www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/pmnforms.htm.

IX. Economic Analysis

    EPA evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements
for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of these two
chemical substances at the time of the direct final rule. The Agency's
complete Economic Analysis is available in the public docket for the
direct final rule (Ref. 6). For dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide
(CAS No. 4080-98-2; PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555), the difference in
hazard communication requirements between this final SNUR and the
direct final SNUR (i.e., removal of the requirement for specific
identification of cancer and developmental toxicity endpoints in
workplace hazard communication materials) could slightly reduce
estimated costs to regulated entities. For thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-
hexyl- (CAS No. 116971-11-0; PMN P-07-283), the manufacture and import
volume limit is higher in the final SNUR than in the direct final SNUR
(4,500 kg/yr vs. 500 kg/yr). While the higher manufacture and import
volume limit does not directly change SNUN costs, it should make it
more feasible for regulated entities to elect to submit the recommended
testing for the substance with the SNUN.

X. References

    The official record for this final rule has been established. The
following is a listing of the documents referenced in this preamble
that have been placed in the docket for this final rule under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898, which is available for inspection as
specified under ADDRESSES.
    1. Plextronics. Comments on the Proposed Significant New Use Rule
for the Chemical Substance under Premanufacture Notice Case Number P-
07-0283. July 8, 2008. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898-0069.2.
    2. EPA. Sanitized Initial Review Exposure Report for P-07-283 at
SIC Code. March 16, 2007. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898-0083.
    3. Plextronics. Plextronics Webpage (www.plextronics.com/
aboutus.aspx). November 5, 2008. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898-0084.
    4. EPA. Ecological Structure Activity Relationships for Neutral
Organics and Thiophenes. 2007. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898-0086.
    5. EPA. Sanitized Engineering and Structure Activity Team Reports
for P-07-283. March, 2007. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2006-0898-0057.
    6. EPA. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rule for
38 Chemical Substances. August 13, 2007. EPA-OPPT-2006-0898-0058.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    This final rule establishes SNURs for several new chemical
substances that were the subject of PMNs, or TSCA section 5(e) consent
orders. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable.
    The information collection requirements related to this action have
already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control
number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 0574). This action does not impose any
burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a
SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 110 hours
per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review
instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the
data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including
through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information
(2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control
number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to
this address.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation
of these SNURs will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this
conclusion is as follows. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to
any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in
any activity described in the rule as a ``significant new use.''
Because these uses are ``new,'' based on all information currently
available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently
engage in such activities. A SNUR requires that any person who intends
to engage in such activity in the future must first notify EPA by
submitting a SNUN. Although some small entities may decide to pursue a
significant new use in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how
many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that,
in response to the promulgation of over 1,000 SNURs, the Agency
receives on average only 5 notices per year. Of those SNUNs submitted
from 2006-2008, only one appears to be from a small entity. In
addition, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN (see
Unit IX.) is minimal regardless of the size of the firm. Therefore, EPA
believes that the potential economic impacts of complying with these
SNURs are not expected to be significant or adversely impact a
substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published on June
2, 1997 (62 FR 29684) (FRL-5597-1), the Agency presented its general
determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Based on EPA's experience with SNURs, State, local, and Tribal
governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does
not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal
government will be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has
determined that this regulatory action does not impose any enforceable
duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on
small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203,
204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).

E. Executive Order 13132

    This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175

    This rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that
affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order
13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
this action does not address environmental health or safety risks
disproportionately affecting children.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action
is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical
standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

XII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

0
2. By adding new Sec.  721.10057 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec.  721.10057  Dodecanedioic acid, 1, 12-dihydrazide.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as dodecanedioic acid,
1, 12-dihydrazide (PMNs P-01-759 and P-05-555; CAS No. 4080-98-2) is
subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) The significant new uses are:
    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in Sec.
721.63 (a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6)(i),
(a)(6)(ii), (b), and (c). Respirators must provide a National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) assigned protection factor
(APF) of at least 50. The following NIOSH-approved respirators meet the
minimum requirement for Sec.  721.63(a)(4): Air-purifying, tight-
fitting full-face respirator equipped with N100 (if oil aerosols
absent), R100, or P100 filters; powered air-purifying respirator
equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece and High Efficiency
Particulate Air (HEPA) filters; supplied air respirator operated in
pressure demand or continuous flow mode and equipped with a tight-
fitting full facepiece. Because the substance is a dermal sensitizer
and irritates mucous membranes, half-face respirators do not provide
adequate protection.
    (ii) Hazard communication program. Requirements as specified in
Sec.  721.72 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (concentration set at 0.1
percent), (f), (g)(1)(i), and (g)(2)(i).
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) are applicable to
manufacturers, importers, and processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.

0
3. By adding new Sec.  721.10088 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec.  721.10088  Thiophene, 2,5-dibromo-3-hexyl-.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to
reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as thiophene, 2,5-
dibromo-3-hexyl- (PMN P-07-283; CAS No. 116971-11-0) is subject to
reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) The significant new uses are:
    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements
as specified in Sec.  721.80(s) (4,500 kilograms).
    (ii) Release to water. Requirements as specified in Sec.  721.90
(a)(4), (b)(4), and (c)(4) (N=1).
    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.
    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in Sec.
721.125 (a), (b), (c), (i), and (k) are applicable to manufacturers,
importers, and processors of this substance.
    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements.
The provisions of Sec.  721.185 apply to this section.

[FR Doc. E9-15931 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61173-61177]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0998; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-249-AD;
Amendment 39-17605; AD 2013-19-23]
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 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a new revision to the
airworthiness limitations of the maintenance planning data (MPD)
document. This AD requires revising the maintenance program to update
inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of principal

structural elements (PSEs). We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of various principal structural elements
(PSEs), which could adversely affect the structural integrity of these
airplanes.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2013
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 7,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, 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: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2012 (77 FR
58791). The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program
to update inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of PSEs.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012) and the FAA's response to each
comment.

Requests To Use the Most Recent MPD Document

    Boeing and American Airlines (AAL) requested that the most recent
MPD document be incorporated into the NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24,
2012).
    Boeing stated that the NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012)
should reference Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section
9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision December 2011. Boeing
stated that this is the most recent MPD document and that this revision
incorporates more stringent restrictions that should be included before
the final rule is issued.
    AAL stated that the Relevant Service Information section and
paragraph (g) of the NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012) refer to
Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision July 2011. AAL stated that
the most recent revision of that document is Revision August 2012, and
that it should be incorporated into the NPRM.
    We agree with the commenters' requests. The Relevant Service
Information section of the NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012) is
not restated in the final rule. However, we have added both Revision
December 2011 and Revision August 2012 of Subsection B, AWLs--
Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing
737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR
to paragraph (g) of this AD as acceptable options for doing the actions
required by this AD. We also re-organized paragraph (g) of this AD to
improve readability. Because Revision August 2012 of Subsection B,
AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing
737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR
is a more stringent document, we might consider future rulemaking to
require the actions specified in that document.

Request To Use Later Revisions of the Service Information

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested the use of a later-approved MPD
document. ANA noted that the NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012)
refers to Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision July 2011, and that the
current document is Revision December 2011. ANA stated that once the
NPRM becomes a final rule, an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
will be necessary to do the actions in the latest document. ANA also
stated that airworthiness limitations and CMR documents are revised
periodically; if an AMOC is necessary for each revision of the
document, it will burden the operators. ANA stated that if paragraph
(g) of the NPRM addresses ``D626A001-CMR revision July 2011, or
later,'' then an AMOC will not be necessary for each later revision of
the document. ANA stated that, since the document is reviewed by the
FAA prior to public release, the FAA is able to confirm if the document
meets the adequate level of safety.
    We disagree with ANA's request. We cannot use the phrase, ``or
later FAA-approved revisions,'' in an AD when referring to the service
document because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR)
regulations for approval of materials ``incorporated by reference'' in
rules. See 1 CFR 51.1(f).
    In general terms, we are required by OFR regulations to either
publish the service document contents as part of the actual AD
language; or submit the service document to the OFR for approval as
``referenced'' material, in which case we may only refer to such
material in the text of an AD. The AD may refer to the service document
only if the OFR approved it for ``incorporation by reference.'' See 1
CFR part 51.
    To allow operators to use later revisions of the referenced
document (issued after publication of the AD), either we must revise
the AD to reference specific later revisions, or operators must request
approval to use later revisions as an AMOC with this AD under the
provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. As stated previously, we
have added Revision December 2011

and Revision August 2012 of Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections,
of Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR to paragraph (g) of
this AD as acceptable options for doing the required actions.

Requests for an AMOC Exception

    WestJet and AAL requested an AMOC exception.
    WestJet stated that in paragraph (c)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 58791,
September 24, 2012) the wording ``may not be able to'' implies that if
an inspection to a modified, altered, or repaired area can be
accomplished, then an AMOC is not required. WestJet also stated that an
AMOC should not be required for Boeing repairs that have damage
tolerant assessments and for supplemental type certificates (STCs) that
have FAA-approved airworthiness limitation structural inspections.
    AAL stated that paragraph (c)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 58791,
September 24, 2012) provides minimal information on how operators
should address new and existing repairs in a PSE area, as defined in
Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision July 2011. AAL also stated
that all repairs in a PSE area that hide a portion of the inspection
area will need an alternate inspection method approved by the Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office to ensure continued damage tolerance of
the affected structure. AAL stated that the current process will create
an unnecessary burden on operators. AAL said that repairs approved
under section 25.571(b) or 26.43(d) of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR 25.571(b) and 14 CFR 26.43(d), respectively) would provide the
required level of safety for the continued damage tolerance of the
affected structure for the NPRM.
    We disagree with the commenters' requests. The revised set of
inspections in Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section
9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision July 2011, resulted from an
updated analysis of The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The analysis includes
consideration of updated loads and flight lengths that increase the
stresses on the structure. Previously approved repairs, modifications,
and alterations may not include consideration of the updated analysis,
and therefore, a review is required before an AMOC can be issued for
them. Affected operators, however, may request approval of an AMOC
under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD by submitting data
substantiating that the change would provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Request To Reference Different Advisory Circular (AC)

    AAL requested that the NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012)
reference a different AC. AAL stated that paragraph (c)(2) of the NPRM
provides FAA guidance for determining the changes necessary for the
required inspections to satisfy the continued damage tolerance of the
affected structure. AAL stated that the NPRM references FAA AC 25.1529-
1A, dated November 20, 2007 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2025.1529-1A.pdf), for guidance regarding
alternative inspection procedures; however, AC 25.1529-1A, dated
November 20, 2007, applies only to airplanes that have a passenger
seating capacity of less than 30 and a maximum payload capacity of less
than 7,500 pounds. AAL stated that FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20,
2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/f73fd2a31b353a71862573b000521928/$FILE/
AC%20120-93.pdf), refers to the damage tolerance inspection for repairs
and alteration.
    We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph
(c)(2) of this AD by specifying FAA AC 120-93, dated November 20, 2007
(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/f73fd2a31b353a71862573b000521928/$FILE/
AC%20120-93.pdf), in lieu of FAA AC 25.1529-1A, dated November 20, 2007
(http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2025.1529-1A.pdf.)

STC Comment

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets
per STC ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--
Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408e012e008616a7862578880060456c/$FILE/
ST00830SE.pdf) affects the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service
instructions.
    We have added paragraph (c)(3) of this AD to state that
installation of STC ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--
Guidance--Library/rgstc.nsf/0/408e012e008616a7862578880060456c/$FILE/
ST00830SE.pdf) affects the ability to accomplish the actions required
by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' AMOC approval request might be
necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 58791, September 24, 2012).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,200 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per    Cost on U.S.
                  Action                            Labor cost           Parts cost      product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Revision........................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour            $0           $85      $102,000
                                            = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information.
All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the
burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-19-23 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17605 ; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0998; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-249-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 7, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued before April 3, 2012.
    (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these
inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure. The FAA
has provided guidance for this determination in FAA Advisory
Circular (AC) 120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/
f73fd2a31b353a71862573b000521928/$FILE/AC%20120-93.pdf).
    (3) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST00830SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--Library/
rgstc.nsf/0/408e012e008616a7862578880060456c/$FILE/ST00830SE.pdf)
affects the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST00830SE is installed, a
``change in product'' AMOC approval request might be necessary to
comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons;
55, Stabilizers; and 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a new revision to the airworthiness
limitations of the maintenance planning data (MPD) document. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of various
principal structural elements (PSEs), which could adversely affect
the structural integrity of these airplanes.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Program Revision

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the maintenance program by incorporating the information in
paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), or (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, except
as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (i) Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900,
and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision July 2011.
    (ii) Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900,
and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision December 2011.
    (iii) Subsection B, AWLs--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900,
and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision August 2012.
    (2) The initial compliance time for the inspections is within
the applicable times specified in the documents identified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, or
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later; or within the applicable time specified in those
documents from the time of installation of new parts.
    (3) Reports specified in the documents identified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD may be submitted
within 10 days after the airplane is returned to service, instead of
10 days after each individual finding as specified in Section 9 of
the documents identified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and
(g)(1)(iii) of this AD.

(h) No Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals

    After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (i.e., alternative inspections) or
inspection intervals may be used or incorporated unless the
alternative action or interval is approved as an AMOC in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
ANM-120S, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) 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 in the area affected 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.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Nancy Marsh,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document, D626A001-CMR, Revision July 2011.
    (ii) Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR,
Revision December 2011.
    (iii) Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' of Boeing 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER MPD Document, D626A001-CMR,
Revision August 2012.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 16, 2013.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23462 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43827-43829]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19952]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 20, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0586; Special Conditions No. 33-019-SC]

Special Conditions: Safran Aircraft Engines, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D;
Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Safran Aircraft
Engines (SAE), Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. This engine model will
have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an additional
takeoff rating that maintains takeoff thrust in certain high ambient
temperature conditions for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in
any one flight. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective September 20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Fitzgerald, AIR-6A1, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5213; telephone (781)
238-7130; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under standard practice, the effective date
of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register. However, as the certification date
for the SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model is imminent; the FAA
finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective
upon publication.

Background

    On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as SAE, applied for a type
certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. On April 30,
2014, SAE requested an extension to their original type certificate
application, which the FAA granted through June 30, 2015. On May 26,
2015, SAE requested another extension to their type certificate
application, which the FAA granted through September 30, 2018.
    SAE proposed an additional takeoff rating that maintains takeoff
thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions with all engines
operating (AEO) for the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Therefore,
the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model would have two different takeoff
ratings. The first rating corresponds with the rated takeoff thrust of
the engine. The second rating maintains the takeoff thrust in certain
high ambient temperature conditions. This additional takeoff rating is
named ``Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature'' (Rated
TOTHAT). The ``Rated TOTHAT'' is an approved engine thrust developed
under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating
limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation for a
maximum usage of 20 minutes in any one flight.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, SAE must show that the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model
meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 33, amendments 33-1
through 33-34 in effect on the date of application. The FAA has
determined that the applicable airworthiness regulations in part 33 do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the
Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model because of their novel and unusual
design feature referred to as ``Rated TOTHAT''. Therefore, these
special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 11.19
and 14 CFR 21.16, and will become part of the type certification basis
for Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine models in accordance with Sec.
21.17(a)(2).
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
the SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions
of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the engine model for
which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that engine
model be amended later to include any other engine model(s) that
incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special
conditions would also apply to the other engine models under Sec.
21.101.
    In addition to complying with the applicable product airworthiness
regulations and special conditions, the Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine
model must comply with the fuel venting and exhaust emission
requirements of 14 CFR part 34.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model will incorporate a novel or
unusual design feature, referred to as ``Rated TOTHAT''. This
additional takeoff rating increases the exhaust gas temperature (EGT)
limit that maintains takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature
conditions for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight.

Discussion

    The ``Rated TOTHAT'' is designed for use during takeoff in
specified high altitudes and high ambient temperature conditions. It
maintains thrust during takeoff for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one
flight. These special conditions contain additional mandatory post-
flight inspection and maintenance action requirements associated with
any use of the ``Rated TOTHAT''. These requirements add a rating
definition in paragraph 1.1 below and mandate required inspections in
the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA); instructions for
installing and operating the engine; engine rating and operating
limitations; instrument connection; and endurance testing.
    The current requirements of the endurance test under 14 CFR 33.87
represent a typical airplane flight profile and the severity of the
takeoff rating. Therefore, the endurance test under Sec.  33.87 covers
normal, AEO takeoff conditions for which the engine control system
limits the engine to the takeoff thrust rating. It is intended to
represent

the airplane flight profile during takeoff under specified ambient
temperatures for a time until the mandatory inspection and maintenance
actions can be performed.
    These special conditions require additional test cycles that
include at least a 150 hours of engine operation as specified in Sec.
33.87(a), to demonstrate the engine is capable of performing the
``Rated TOTHAT'' rating during AEO conditions without disassembly or
modification.
    The associated engine deterioration, after use of the ``Rated
TOTHAT'', is not known without the intervening mandatory inspections in
these special conditions. These mandatory inspections ensure the engine
will continue to comply with its certification basis, which includes
these special conditions, after any use of the ``Rated TOTHAT''. The
applicant is expected to assess the deterioration from use of the
``Rated TOTHAT''. The airworthiness limitations section (ALS) must
prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions
associated with any use of the ``Rated TOTHAT''.
    These requirements maintain a level of safety equivalent to the
level intended by the applicable airworthiness standards in effect on
the date of application.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 33-17-01-SC for the SAE,
Silvercrest-2 SC-2D; Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature
engine model was published in the Federal Register on July 03, 2017 (82
FR 30800). No comments were received, and the special conditions are
adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model. Should SAE apply at a later date for
a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same
type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design
feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only the ``Rated TOTHAT'' features on
Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine models. It is not a rule of general
applicability and applies only to SAE who requested FAA approval of
this engine feature.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Aircraft, Engines, Aviation Safety, Reporting and Recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    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 SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC-2D engine model.

1. Part 1 Definition.

    ``Rated Take-off Thrust at High Ambient Temperature'' (Rated
TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified
altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established
for the engine during takeoff operation. Use is limited to two periods,
no longer than 10 minutes each under one engine inoperative (OEI)
conditions or 5 minutes each under all engines operating (AEO)
conditions in any one flight for a maximum accumulated usage of 20
minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the ``Rated TOTHAT'' is
used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.

2. Part 33 Requirements.

    In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33,
effective February 1, 1965, which are applicable to the engine and the
``Rated TOTHAT'', the following special conditions apply:
    (a) Section 33.4, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
    (1) The ALS must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections
and maintenance actions associated with any use of the ``Rated
TOTHAT''.
    (2) The applicant must validate the adequacy of the inspections and
maintenance actions required under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special
conditions.
    (3) The applicant must establish an in-service engine evaluation
program to ensure the continued adequacy of the instructions for
mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions prescribed
under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions, and of the data
for thrust assurance procedures required by paragraph 2(b)(2) of these
special conditions. The program must include service engine tests or
equivalent service engine test experience on engines of similar design
and evaluations of service usage of the ``Rated TOTHAT''.
    (b) Section 33.5, Instruction manual for installing and operating
the engine.
    (1) Installation Instructions:
    (i) The applicant must identify the means, or provisions for means,
provided in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2(e) of these
special conditions.
    (ii) The applicant must specify that the engine thrust control
system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the
``Rated TOTHAT'' level when one engine fails during takeoff at
specified altitudes and temperatures.
    (iii) The applicant must specify that the ``Rated TOTHAT'' is
available by manual crew selection at specified altitudes and
temperatures in AEO conditions.
    (2) Operating Instructions: The applicant must provide data on
engine performance characteristics and variability to enable the
airplane manufacturer to establish airplane thrust assurance
procedures.
    (c) Section 33.7, Engine ratings and operating limitations.
    (1) ``Rated TOTHAT'' and the associated operating limitations are
established as follows:
    (i) The thrust is the same as the engine takeoff rated thrust with
extended flat rating corner point.
    (ii) The rotational speed limits are the same as those associated
with the engine takeoff rated thrust.
    (iii) The applicant must establish a gas temperature steady-state
limit and, if necessary, a transient gas over temperature limit for
which the duration is no longer than 30 seconds.
    (iv) The use is limited to two periods of no longer than 10 minutes
each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any
one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one
flight. Each flight where the ``Rated TOTHAT'' is used must be followed
by mandatory inspections and maintenance actions prescribed by
paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.
    (2) The applicant must propose language to include in the type
certificate data sheet specified in 14 CFR 21.41 for the following:
    (i) ``Rated TOTHAT'' and associated limitations.
    (ii) As required by 14 CFR 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include
a note stating that ``Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature
(Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under
specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations
established for the engine. Use is limited to two periods, no longer
than 10 minutes each under OEI

conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight,
for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each
flight where the ``Rated TOTHAT'' is used must be followed by mandatory
inspection and maintenance actions.''
    (iii) As required by Sec.  33.5(b), Operating instructions, include
a note stating that ``the engine thrust control system automatically
resets the thrust on the operating engine to the ``Rated TOTHAT'' level
when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and
temperatures, and the ``Rated TOTHAT'' is available by manual selection
when all engines are operational during takeoff at specified altitudes
and temperatures.''
    (d) Section 33.28, Engine Control Systems.
    The engine must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means,
for automatic availability and automatic control of the ``Rated
TOTHAT'' under OEI conditions and must permit manual activation of the
``Rated TOTHAT'' under AEO conditions.
    (e) Section 33.29, Instrument connection.
    The engine must:
    (1) Have means, or provisions for means, to alert the pilot when
the ``Rated TOTHAT'' is in use, when the event begins and when the time
interval expires.
    (2) Have means, or provision for means, which cannot be reset in
flight, to:
    (i) Automatically record each use and duration of the ``Rated
TOTHAT'', and
    (ii) Alert maintenance personnel that the engine has been operated
at the ``Rated TOTHAT'' and permit retrieval of recorded data.
    (3) Have means, or provision for means, to enable routine
verification of the proper operation of the means in paragraph 2(e)(1)
and (e)(2) of these special conditions.
    (f) Section 33.85(b), Calibration tests.
    The applicant must base the calibration test on the thrust check at
the end of the endurance test required by Sec.  33.87 of these special
conditions.
    (g) Section 33.87, Endurance test.
    (1) In addition to the applicable requirements of Sec.  33.87(a):
    (i) The Sec.  33.87 endurance test must be modified as follows:
    (A) Modify the 30 minute test cycle at the rated takeoff thrust in
Sec.  33.87(b)(2)(ii) to run one minute at rated takeoff thrust,
followed by five minutes at the ``Rated TOTHAT'', followed by the rated
takeoff thrust for the remaining twenty-four minutes.
    (B) The modified 30 minute period described above in paragraph
2(g)(1)(i)(A) must be repeated ten times in cycles 16 through 25 of the
Sec.  33.87 endurance test.
    (2) After completion of the tests required by Sec.  33.87(b), as
modified in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i) above, and without intervening
disassembly, except as needed to replace those parts described as
consumables in the ICA, the applicant must conduct the following test
sequence for a total time of not less than 120 minutes:
    (i) Ten minutes at ``Rated TOTHAT''.
    (ii) Eighty-eight minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.
    (iii) One minute at 50 percent of rated takeoff thrust.
    (iv) Ten minutes at ``Rated TOTHAT''.
    (v) Ten minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.
    (vi) One minute at flight idle.
    (3) The test sequence of Sec. Sec.  33.87(b)(1) through (b)(6) of
these special conditions must be run continuously. If a stop occurs
during these tests, the interrupted sequence must be repeated unless
the applicant shows that the severity of the test would not be reduced
if the current tests were continued.
    (4) Where the engine characteristics are such that acceleration to
the ``Rated TOTHAT'' results in a transient over temperature in excess
of the steady-state temperature limit identified in paragraph
2(c)(1)(iii) of these special conditions, the transient gas over
temperature must be applied to each acceleration to the ``Rated
TOTHAT'' of the test sequence in paragraph 2(g)(2) of these special
conditions.
    (h) Section 33.93, Teardown inspection.
    The applicant must perform the teardown inspection required by
Sec.  33.93(a), after completing the endurance test prescribed by Sec.
33.87 of these special conditions.
    (i) Section 33.201, Design and test requirements for Early ETOPS
eligibility.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  33.201(c)(1), the
simulated ETOPS mission cyclic endurance test must include two cycles
of 10 minute duration, each at the ``Rated TOTHAT''; one before the
last diversion cycle and one at the end of the ETOPS test.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on August 23, 2017.
Karen M. Grant
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-19952 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P