 [ Federal Register: July 17, 2002 ( Volume 67, Number 137)] [ Rules and Regulations] [ Page 46884 46888] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [ wais. access. gpo. gov] [ DOCID: fr17jy02 21]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP 2002 0093; FRL 7185 4] RIN 2070 Aspergillus flavus AF36; Amendment, Temporary Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation amends an existing temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the atoxigenic microbial pesticide, Aspergillus flavus AF36 on cotton consistent with the Experimental Use Permit 69224 EUP 1, which will now allow for application to cotton in certain counties in Arizona and Texas. Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), on behalf of the USDA/ ARS Southern Regional Research Center, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996, requesting the temporary tolerance exemption amendment. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36. The temporary tolerance exemption will expire on December 30, 2004.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 17, 2002. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP 2002 0093, must be received by EPA on or before September 16, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit VIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your objections and hearing requests must identify docket ID number OPP 2002 0093 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Shanaz Bacchus, c/ o Product Manager ( PM) 90, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703 308 8097; e mail address:  bacchus. shanaz@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

 Examples of Categories NAICS codes potentially affected entities  Industry 111 Crop production 112 Animal production 311 Food manufacturing 32532 Pesticide manufacturing

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 the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at  http:// w ww. epa. gov/. To access this [[ Page 46885]]

document, on the Home Page select    Laws and Regulations,''    Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this document under the    Federal Register Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at  http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at  http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml 00/ Title  40/ 40cfr180  00. html, a beta site currently under development. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official docket for this action under docket ID number OPP 2002 0093. The official docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information ( CBI). Interested parties should consult both the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official docket does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official docket, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall < greek i> 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is ( 703) 305 5805.

II. Background and Statutory Authority A. Statutory Authority Section 408( c)( 2)( A)( i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance ( the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is    safe.'' Section 408( c)( 2)( A)( ii) defines    safe'' to mean that    there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408( b)( 2)( C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to    ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .'' Additionally, section 408( b)( 2)( D) requires that the Agency consider    available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues'' and    other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

B. Factual Background This extension of the temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is associated with an extension of an Experimental Use Permit ( 69224 EUP 1), which was granted in May 1996 to the Southern Regional Research Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service ( USDA ARS), 1100 Robert E. Lee Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70179 0687. Both the temporary exemption from tolerance and the Experimental Use Permit in Arizona expire December 30, 2003. In the Federal Register of ( March 25 2002, 57 FR 13628) ( FRL 6827 8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a, as amended by the FQPA ( Public Law 104 170), announcing the filing of an amended pesticide tolerance petition ( PP 5E4575) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Technology Center of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway < greek i> 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 3390 on behalf of the USDA/ ARS Southern Regional Research Center, 1100 Robert E. Lee Blvd., P. O. Box 19687, New Orleans, LA 70179. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner, Dr. Michael Braverman. It referred to data previously evaluated and summarized by the Agency as published in the Federal Register of May 26 1999 ( 64 FR 28371) ( FRL 6081 2), and the extension of the temporary tolerance exemption as published in the Federal Register of May 23 2001 ( 66 FR 28383) ( FRL 6781 7). The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.1206 be amended by establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 on cotton in certain counties in Texas in addition to the current exemption from temporary tolerance on cotton in Arizona. This petition also, requested that this temporary exemption from a tolerance be extended to December 30, 2005. Several comments were received in favor of the amendment to allow use of the microbial pesticide in Texas. The growers were of the opinion that the use of this active ingredient is likely to reduce the high levels of naturally occurring aflatoxin producing strain. Aspergillus flavus AF36 has been found at a range of less than 1 to approximately 5% in certain regions of Texas. One comment was received requesting the Agency to re evaluate the science of the proposed program and that the risks associated with the use of the active ingredient be considered before a permanent exemption from a tolerance is issued. The main concerns in this comment were the requirement for uniform standards in the expression of aflatoxin levels found in the crop; the practical significance of the proposed treatment method in reducing aflatoxin contamination; and the significance of the host stress in the expression of pathogenicity by Aspergillus flavus. Considering each of these points, first, the commenter referred to the mixing of units used to measure aflatoxin contamination. This comment specifically referred to the experimental researcher's reports, which include measurement of aflatoxin levels as micrograms per gram of cottonseed rather than the typical expression of micrograms per kilogram of cottonseed. In data submitted to the Agency, there is no indication that the company was in error or misrepresenting the aflatoxin values. In all cases, EPA is careful to pay close scrutiny to the units of measure in data they review and the implications made from the stated values. Secondly, the efficacy of the pesticidal product to reduce the level of aflatoxin in commercial crops was questioned in the comments. The Agency requires that the company present data to confirm their claim to control a public health hazard. The submitted data are available in the public docket and have been reviewed. These data indicate that when Aspergillus flavus AF36 is used, a higher percentage of the treated commodity meets, or is less than, the standards of aflatoxin required by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), and the aflatoxin contamination in the experimental region is lowered. The growers ultimately decide if the reduced aflatoxin contamination is worth the treatment cost, but all cotton and its by products sold for food/ feed must meet the FDA aflatoxin standard.

[[ Page 46886]] Regarding testing of the atoxigenic fungus, Aspergillus flavus AF36, on stressed or immunosuppressed species to detect any pathogenic potential in plants, insects, or mammals, EPA's guideline requirements are designed to address the normal immune response to microbial exposure. These tests include non self/ foreign recognition and response or clearance by the immune system over time. EPA is examining new methods that may address the potential of a microbe to infect stressed or immunocompromised hosts. In the interim, special measures have been included in the experimental treatments to reduce exposure to Aspergillus flavus AF36 outside of the designated treatment areas. The experimental plan also requires extensive data collection to examine the fate and persistence of Aspergillus flavus AF36 as a component of the local fungal population. Exposure to Aspergillus flavus is inevitable, because the fungus normally occurs in the environment. Given the ubiquitous nature of various strains of Aspergillus flavus, the precautions associated with this experimental program, data indicating no undue adverse health effects to test rodent species by oral ingestion of Aspergillus flavus AF36, as well as the current FDA monitoring of aflatoxin levels, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm resulting from the use of the non aflatoxin producing fungus, Aspergillus flavus AF36.

III. Toxicological Profile and Risk Assessment Consistent with section 408( b)( 2)( D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Based on the data and analyses outlined in the Federal Register of May 26 1999 ( 66 FR 28371), and summarized below, EPA has concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U. S. population, including infants and children, to residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 arising from the limited use pattern of the experimental use permit. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. 1. Food. The cultural practice allows application of the microbial pesticide prebloom to cotton. This precludes the potential for direct residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 per se to remain on the treated cotton. Only the seed of the treated commodity, cotton, is likely to be processed as food for cottonseed oil. Residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 or its metabolites are likely to be removed from cotton seed oil during this processing. In addition, the data submitted demonstrate that the proposed strain of Aspergillus flavus AF36, has a low toxicity potential, and, therefore, is likely to pose a minimal to non existent hazard if used as labeled. The acute oral LD< INF> 50</ INF> of rats treated by gavage for 14 days is greater than 5,000 mg/ kg. Further, the proposed strain of Aspergillus flavus, AF36, does not produce aflatoxin. Aflatoxin is regulated on the by products of cotton by the Food and Drug Administration. The May 23 2001 Federal Register Notice also, discusses that no adverse effects were reported in the annual reports of the Experimental Use Permit 69224 EUP 1, and, in some instances, aflatoxin levels of cotton seed were reduced in treated cotton ( May 23, 2001, 66 FR 28383). 2. Dermal exposure. Non occupational dermal exposure and risk to adults, infants and children are not likely if the pesticide is used as labeled. If the microbe exhibits dermal sensitizing properties which is associated with this genus of fungi, the boundaries are likely to maintain distribution near treated areas thus protecting nearby at risk populations. To further minimize exposure to immunocompromised or sensitive populations, infants and children, the Agency continues to require that the pesticide must not be applied within a boundary of 400 feet of schools, daycare and health care facilities and hospitals. 3. Inhalation exposure. Based on the method of application to the soil of cultivated cotton fields, prebloom with set boundaries, non occupational inhalation exposure and risk to human adults, children and infants are likely to be minimal. 4. Determination of safety for U. S. population, infants and children. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure ( safety) for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of exposure ( safety) will be safe for infants and children. In this instance, based on the above findings, EPA believes there are reliable data to support the conclusion that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants, children, and adults when Aspergillus flavus AF36 is used as labeled, and that no additional margin of exposure is necessary. 5. Cumulative effects. This is the only microbe in the genus Aspergillus which is in an experimental use program at this time. Aspergillus species are naturally occurring ubiquitous fungi, such that exposure to various species is normal. The data submitted to the Agency support the claim that Aspergillus flavus AF36 is non aflatoxin producing. When applied prior to flowering, Aspergillus flavus has been shown to exclude aflatoxin producing fungi competitively from the developing crop and to reduce aflatoxin contamination of cottonseed. Data show that the proposed use will not result in appreciable increases in the long term populaton of Aspergillus flavus on the crop beyond naturally occurring levels. Furthermore, there is no expectation of cumulative effects with other pesticides.

IV. Other considerations 1. Endocrine disruptors. EPA does not have any information regarding endocrine effects of this microbial pesticide at this time. 2. Analytical methods. Starter cultures are screened on the basis of vegetative incompatibility with the toxigenic strain. Aspergillus flavus AF 36 does not demonstrate vegetative compatibility with the aflatoxin producing S strain. Aflatoxin production is monitored by standard thin layer chromatography ( tlc) procedures and visualization via scanning fluorescence densitometry and there is a zero tolerance for aflatoxin. Human pathogens are reported to be within regulatory levels ( May 26 1999, 64 FR 28371). Treated cotton and its by products are screened for aflatoxin prior to introduction into the channels of commerce. FDA does not allow cotton seed products containing aflatoxin above 20 parts per billion ( ppb) to be used in dairy rations or above 300 ppb to be used for feeding beef cattle. 3. Codex maximum residue level. There is no codex maximum residue level for Aspergillus flavus AF36. V. Objections and Hearing Requests Under section 408( g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the [[ Page 46887]]

FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) provides essentially the same process for persons to    object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP 2002 0093 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 16, 2002. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 202) 260 4865. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it    Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement    when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at ( 703) 305 5697, by e mail at  tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 3. Copies for the docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VIII. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 2. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP 2002 0093, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to:  oppdocket epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues( s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested ( 40 CFR 178.32).

VI. Regulatory Assessment Requirements This final rule establishes an amended exemption from the temporary tolerance requirement under FFDCA section 408( d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( October 4 1993, 58 FR 51735). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( May 22 2001, 66 FR 28355). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104 4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( February 16 1994, 59 FR 7629); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( April 23 1997, 62 FR 19885). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to 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). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408( d), such as the amended temporary tolerance exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that 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 [[ Page 46888]]

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( August 10 1999, 64 FR 43255). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure    meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''    Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have    substantial direct effects 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.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408( n)( 4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any    tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( November 6, 2000, 65 FR 67249). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure    meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''    Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have    substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

VII. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General 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 to 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a    major rule '' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 27, 2002. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180[ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U. S. C. 321( q), 346( a) and 374.

2. Section 180.1206 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 180.1206 Aspergillus flavus AF36.

Aspergillus flavus AF36 is temporarily exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on cotton. The temporary exemption from a tolerance will expire on December 30, 2004, consistent with the Experimental Use Permit 69224 EUP 1.

[ FR Doc.  02 17869  Filed 7 16  02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 S


[Federal Register: May 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 26362-26363]
[DOCID:fr04my06-49]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0022; FRL-8166-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Refractory Products
Manufacturing (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 2040.03, OMB Control Number
2060-0515

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and costs.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 5, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2005-0022, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division (CAMPD), Office of Compliance (OC), (Mail
Code 2223A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0022, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and

Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Title: NESHAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2040.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0515.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2006. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the

related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of
OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40
CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for refractory products manufacturing were proposed
on June 20, 2002, (67 FR 42107), and promulgated on April 16, 2003, (68
FR 8729). These standards apply to each existing, new, or reconstructed
refractory products manufacturing facility.
    Respondents must submit one-time notifications of applicability and
reports on initial performance test results. Plants must develop and
implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; develop and
implement an operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan; and submit
semiannual reports of any event where the plans were not followed.
Semiannual reports for periods of operation during which the monitoring
parameter ranges established during the initial compliance test are
exceeded, or reports certifying that no exceedances have occurred are
also required. Some plants are subject to limitations on the type of
fuel that can be used to fire kilns. If those plants must use an
alternative fuel, they must submit a notification of intent to use
alternative fuel and a report on alternative fuel use.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
must maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at
least five years following the collection of such measurements,
maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated
state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated
authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 21
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Refractory products manufacturing
facility.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, initially, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 470.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $30,304, which includes $3,000
annualized O&M costs, and $27,304 annualized labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 256 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. The decrease in burden from the most recently
approved ICR is due to the requirements of the rule that states all
existing sources must be in compliance within three years of
promulgation date, thus, less burden is imposed on existing sources
after achieving compliance. Also, there are no new sources expected
over the three years of this ICR.
    There was also a decrease in the capital/startup and operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs from the previous ICR. There was an increase in
the O&M costs to account for eight sources. The major decrease was due
to the fact that there are no new sources that would incur capital/
startup costs over the next three years of this ICR.

    Dated: April 24, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E6-6769 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39023-39025]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2017-0789; 1625-AA00]

Safety Zone; St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 200-yard radius of the position of the
grounded vessel, M/V CALUMET on the north end of Sugar Island. The
safety zone is needed to provide for the safety of life and property on
the navigable waters during emergency salvage operations onboard a bulk
carrier that ran aground. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Sault Ste. Marie.

DATES: This rule is effective with actual notice from August 10, 2017
until August 17, 2017. This rule is effective without actual notice on
August 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0789 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LTJG Sean V. Murphy, Waterways Management Chief, Sector
Sault Ste. Marie, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
M/V Motor Vessel

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because M/V CALUMET ran aground on the north
side of Sugar Island in the St. Marys River on the night of 09 August
2017 and immediate action is needed to investigate the incident and
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with salvage of the
vessel. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because the Coast Guard
must establish this safety zone by 10 August 2017.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
investigate the incident and respond to the potential safety hazards
associated with emergency salvage operations of M/V CALUMET.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Sault Ste. Marie (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with emergency salvage operations starting
10 August 2017 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard
radius of the aground vessel in position 46-29.3N 084-18.1W. This rule
is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
the navigable waters within the safety zone while the incident is
investigated and the vessel is salvaged.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from August 10, 2017 to August
17, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 200
yards of the aground M/V CALUMET in position 46-29.3N 084-18.1W. The
duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while the incident is
investigated and the vessel is salvaged. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and limited duration of the safety zone. We conclude that
this rule is not a

significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal and short-term impact on the economy, especially as balanced
against the risk of serious environmental consequences and potential
long-term delays and economic loss to industry posed by the grounded
vessel if this rule is not enacted. Further, this regulatory action
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be of
relatively small size and short duration, and it is designed to
minimize the impact on navigation. Moreover, vessels may still transit
through the regulated area when permitted by the Captain of the Port or
his on-scene representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    (1) This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may
be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the navigable waters in the St. Marys
River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI.
    (2) This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: There
is ample room in the channel for recreational vessels to transit
outside of the safety zone. The Coast Guard will notify mariners before
activating the zone by appropriate means which may include but are not
limited to an Advisory Notice and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting 7 days that will prohibit entry
within 200 yards of the aground M/V CALUMET. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0789 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0789   Safety Zone; St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie,
MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
within a 200 yard radius from the aground M/V CALUMET, in position 46-
29.3N 084-18.1W, from surface to bottom. These coordinates are based on
WGS 84.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative

means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling the Sector Sault Ste. Marie Command Center at
906-635-3319. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced between
August 10, 2017 through August 17, 2017.

    Dated: August 11, 2017.
M.R. Broz,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie.
[FR Doc. 2017-17404 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51955-51957]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0482; Product Identifier 2019-NM-066-AD; Amendment
39-19743; AD 2019-19-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes; Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600,
B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and
Airbus SAS Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report indicating that the trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS)
actuator ball nut trunnion lower attachment was missing parts. This AD
requires a one-time detailed inspection of the THS actuator right-hand
spherical bearing and retaining parts (bolt, tab washer, and end cap)
for correct installation of the retaining parts and correct bolt
position, and applicable corrective actions, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by
reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 5, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 5,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0482.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0482; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A300 series airplanes; Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus SAS
Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on June 25, 2019 (84 FR 29821). The NPRM was prompted by a report
indicating that the THS actuator ball nut trunnion lower attachment was
missing parts. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time detailed
inspection of the THS actuator right-hand spherical bearing and
retaining parts (bolt, tab washer, and end cap) for correct
installation of the retaining parts and correct bolt position, and
applicable corrective actions.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address missing THS actuator right-
hand spherical bearings and retaining parts from the THS actuator ball
nut trunnion lower attachment, which could lead to THS actuator
failure, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0078, dated March 29, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0078'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 series airplanes; Airbus SAS
Model A300-600 series airplanes; and Airbus SAS Model A310 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During maintenance on an A300-600 aeroplane, affected parts were
found missing from THS actuator ball nut trunnion lower attachment.
The THS actuator lower attachment has a fail-safe design through a
primary and secondary load path, which ensures the load path
continuity between the horizontal tail plane and the actuator. The
primary load path is engaged thanks in particular to these affected
parts.
    Investigation results highlighted that human error is the most
likely scenario to have caused the affected parts to have been
missing. In flight, absence of affected parts would cause THS
actuator secondary load path engagement, which is designed to
withstand the full loads only for a limited period of time.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to THS
actuator failure, possibly resulting in loss of control of the
aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued the
applicable SB [Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-0206; Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-27-6073; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2108] to
provide inspection instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time detailed inspection (DET) of the affected parts [for correct
installation of the retaining parts and correct bolt position] to
establish fleet-wide status and, depending on findings,
accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Comments

    The FAA has given the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment
received. FedEx stated that it has no objection to the NPRM.

Conclusion

    The FAA has reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0078 describes procedures for a one-time detailed
inspection of the THS actuator right-hand spherical bearing and
retaining parts for correct installation of the

retaining parts and correct bolt position, and applicable corrective
actions. Corrective actions include torqueing and securing the bolt
with new lockwire, or installing a new dowel, end cap, washer, and
bolt, and securing with new lockwire. This material is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 128 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................              $0             $170          $21,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition repairs that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition repairs:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170....             (*)           * $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency
  to provide parts cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified
  in this AD.

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the other on-condition action
specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2019-19-07 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19743; Docket No. FAA-2019-0482;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-066-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 5, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and
B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (6) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the trimmable
horizontal stabilizer (THS) actuator ball nut trunnion lower
attachment was missing the THS actuator right-hand spherical
bearings and

retaining parts (bolt, tab washer, and end cap). The FAA is issuing
this AD to address missing THS actuator right-hand spherical
bearings and retaining parts from the THS actuator ball nut trunnion
lower attachment, which could lead to THS actuator failure, possibly
resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0078, dated March 29, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0078''). All
provisions specified in EASA AD 2019-0078 apply in this AD.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0078

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0078 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0078 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0078 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0078,
dated March 29, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0078, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0482.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 19, 2019.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-21237 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18662-18664]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0174; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-03-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5B1/P; -
5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/
P; -5B9/P; -5B1/3; -5B2/3; -5B3/3; -5B4/3; -5B5/3; -5B6/3; -5B7/3; -
5B8/3; -5B9/3; -5B3/3B1; and -5B4/3B1 Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This supplemental NPRM revises an earlier proposed
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to CFM International, S.A.
CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P;
-5B7/P; -5B8/P; and -5B9/P turbofan engines. That proposed AD would
have required initial and repetitive eddy current inspections (ECIs) of
certain part number (P/N) low-pressure (LP) turbine rear frames. That
proposed AD resulted from a refined lifing analysis by the engine
manufacturer that shows the need to identify initial and repetitive
inspection thresholds for inspecting certain LP turbine rear frames.
This supplemental NPRM revises the proposed AD to add two LP turbine
rear frame P/Ns to the applicability, to add 11 engine models to the
applicability, and to clarify the commercial and corporate engines/LP
turbine rear frames applicability. This supplemental NPRM results from
CFM International, S.A. revising the service information to add LP
turbine rear frame P/Ns and engine models, and from comments received
on the proposed AD. This supplemental NPRM also results from a refined
lifing analysis by the engine manufacturer that shows the need to
identify initial and repetitive inspection thresholds for inspecting
certain LP turbine rear frames. We are proposing this AD to detect low-
cycle-fatigue cracks in the LP turbine rear frame, which could result
in an engine separating from the airplane, causing damage to, and
possibly leading to loss of control of, the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by June 8,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from CFM International, Technical Publications Department, 1 Neumann
Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (513) 552-
2816.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0174; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-03-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    On April 29, 2008, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an AD, applicable
to CFM International, S.A. CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/
P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; and -5B9/P turbofan
engines. The proposed AD published as an NPRM in the Federal Register
on May 7, 2008 (73 FR 25597). That NPRM proposed to require initial and
repetitive ECIs of certain P/N LP turbine rear frames.
    Since we issued that NPRM, we became aware of two additional LP
turbine rear frame P/Ns affected, and 11 additional engine models
affected that were not listed in the proposed AD applicability. CFM
International, S.A. subsequently superseded Service Bulletin (SB) No.
CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, Revision 1, dated December 20, 2007, to add those
LP turbine rear frame P/Ns and engine models. We added LP turbine rear
frame P/Ns 338-171-751-0; and 338-171-752-0, and CFM56-5B1/3; -5B2/3; -
5B3/3; -5B4/3; -5B5/3; -5B6/3; -5B7/3; -5B8/3; -5B9/3; -5B3/3B1; and -
5B4/3B1 engine models to the applicability of the supplemental NPRM. We
also clarified the commercial and corporate engines/LP turbine rear
frames applicability. Because we added those CFM56 engine models and
added those LP turbine rear frame P/Ns, this supplemental NPRM reopens
the comment period to include those added engine models and added P/Ns,
and to reference the superseding service bulletin.
    As we stated in the original proposed AD, CFM International, S.A.
performed a refined lifing analysis that shows the need to identify
initial and repetitive inspection thresholds for inspecting LP turbine
rear frames. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an
engine separating from the airplane, causing damage to, and possibly
leading to loss of control of the airplane.

Comments

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

Consider Expanding the Engine Model Applicability

    One commenter, Virgin Airlines, requests that we consider expanding
the applicability in the proposed AD by adding the CFM56-5B4/3 and
CFM56-5B6/3 turbofan engines.
    We agree that those engines are affected. We added them to this
supplemental NPRM.

Disagreement With Proposed AD Applicability

    One commenter, CFM International S.A., disagrees with the proposed
AD applicability, specifically, the listing of all of the engines as
certified for corporate application. They state that only the CFM56-
5B6/P and CFM56-5B7/P engine models certified for corporate application
need to be covered by the proposed AD, because they were initially
certified with a 22,500-cycle life. They now have a first inspection at
19,000 cycles. All of the other -5B/P engine models in the corporate
application were certified with the first inspection at 19,000 cycles,
and do not need to be covered by the proposed AD.
    We agree. We corrected and clarified the applicability in the
supplemental NPRM.

Request To Give Credit

    One commenter, Airbus, requests that we give credit for inspections
previously done using CFM International, S.A. Service Bulletin No.
CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, dated May 3, 2007.
    We agree. We changed the supplemental NPRM to give credit for
previous initial and repetitive inspections of turbine rear frames done
before the effective date of the proposed AD using the original or
Revision 1 of CFM International, S.A. Service Bulletin No. CFM56-5B S/B
72-0620.

Correction to How Many Engines Affected

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we discovered that we
incorrectly estimated how many engines are affected. We stated that
about 426 engines are affected that are installed on airplanes of U.S.
registry. That number actually reflects how many engines are installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry, regardless of the LP turbine rear frame
P/N. We corrected the estimated number of affected engines to 282,
which reflects those engines with the affected LP turbine rear frames
listed in this supplemental NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this
same type design. We are proposing this AD, which will require initial
and repetitive ECIs of certain P/N LP turbine rear frames. This
proposed AD results from a refined lifing analysis by the engine
manufacturer that shows the need to identify initial and repetitive
inspection thresholds for inspecting certain LP turbine rear frames.
This proposed AD would require you to use the service information
described previously to perform the inspections.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 282 CFM56-5B series
turbofan engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate
that it would take about 3 work-hours to perform an eddy current
inspection of an LP turbine rear frame. The average labor rate is $80
per work-hour. A replacement LP turbine rear frame costs

about $102,240. If all 282 LP turbine rear frames needed replacement,
we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be
$28,899,360.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:

CFM International, S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2008-0174; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-03-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by June 8,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to:
    (1) CFM International, S.A. turbofan engines with a low-pressure
(LP) turbine rear frame, part number (P/N) 338-171-703-0; 338-171-
704-0; 338-171-705-0; or 338-171-706-0 installed, as follows:
    (i) Commercial application CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/P; -5B3/P1;
-5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; -5B9/P turbofan
engines.
    (ii) Corporate application CFM56-5B6/P and -5B7/P turbofan
engines.
    (2) CFM International, S.A. turbofan engines with an LP turbine
rear frame, P/N 338-171-751-0; or 338-171-752-0 installed, on
corporate and commercial applications of CFM56-5B1/P; -5B2/P; -5B3/
P; -5B3/P1; -5B4/P; -5B4/P1; -5B5/P; -5B6/P; -5B7/P; -5B8/P; -5B9/P;
-5B1/3; -5B2/3; -5B3/3; -5B4/3; -5B5/3; -5B6/3; -5B7/3; -5B8/3; -
5B9/3; -5B3/3B1; and -5B4/3B1 turbofan engines.
    (3) These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus
A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a refined lifing analysis by the engine
manufacturer that shows the need to identify initial and repetitive
inspection thresholds for inspecting certain LP turbine rear frames.
We are issuing this AD to detect low-cycle-fatigue cracks in the LP
turbine rear frame, which could result in an engine separating from
the airplane, causing damage to, and possibly leading to loss of
control of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Initial Inspection

    (f) Perform an initial eddy current inspection (ECI) of the LP
turbine rear frame using paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(7)(d) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of CFM International, S.A. Service
Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, Revision 2, dated December
1, 2008, at the following compliance times:
    (1) For commercial engine applications, within 25,000 cycles-
since-new (CSN) on the LP turbine rear frame.
    (2) For corporate engine applications, within 19,000 CSN on the
LP turbine rear frame.
    (3) For engines with unknown LP turbine rear frame CSN, within
300 cycles-in-service from the effective date of this AD.

Repetitive Inspections

    (g) Perform repetitive ECIs of the LP turbine rear frame using
paragraphs 3.A. through 3.A.(7)(d) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of CFM International, S.A. SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620,
Revision 2, dated December 1, 2008. Use the inspection intervals in
paragraph 3.A.(8) of the Accomplishment Instructions of CFM
International, S.A. SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, Revision 2, dated
December 1, 2008.

LP Turbine Rear Frame Removal Criteria

    (h) Remove LP turbine rear frames from service that have a
single crack length of 2.56 inches (65 mm) or longer, or multiple
cracks with an accumulated crack length of 2.56 inches (65 mm) or
longer.

Previous Credit

    (i) Initial and repetitive inspections done before the effective
date of this AD using CFM International, S.A. SB No. CFM56-5B S/B
72-0620, dated May 3, 2007, or SB No. CFM56-5B S/B 72-0620, Revision
1, dated December 20, 2007, comply with the initial and repetitive
inspection requirements specified in this AD. Operators must
continue performing the repetitive inspections required in paragraph
(g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

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

Related Information

    (k) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2007-0221, dated August
13, 2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.
    (l) Contact Stephen Sheely, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 17, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-9443 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P