[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2593-2595]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00627]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0018; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-049-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CENTRAIR Gliders

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
CENTRAIR Models 101, 101A, 101AP, and 101P gliders. This proposed AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as structural damage to the fuselage. We are
issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For service information
identified in this proposed AD, contact Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle
CENTRAIR, Aerodrome B.P. 44, F-36300 LeBlanc, France; telephone:
+33(0)254370796, fax: +33(0)254374864, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: none. You may review this referenced service information at
the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. 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 by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2014-0018; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0018;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-049-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2013-0258, dated October 25, 2013 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Occurrences of structural damage were reported on several
Centrair 101 sailplane fuselage. The results of the subsequent
investigations identified that these findings were accidental damage
related and not identified in time during routine maintenance, due
to inadequate maintenance instructions.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the sailplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition,
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle (SN) Centrair issued Service Bulletin
(SB) 101-06 to provide instructions for structural inspections and
Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) of
France issued AD 85-21-(A) to mandate the fuselage inspections
described in that SB.
    Since that AD was issued, SN Centrair issued SB 101-06 at
revision (rev.) 1 to provide improved instructions to identify
accidental structural damages.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 85-21-(A), which is superseded, but
requires accomplishment of those fuselage structural inspections in
accordance with improved instructions.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0018.

Relevant Service Information

    Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle Centrair has issued
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle Centrair Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
101-06, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2013. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe

condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 43 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $10,965, or $255 per product.
    Since there are currently no repair instructions available if
discrepancies are found during the required proposed inspections, we
have no way of determining the number of products that may need follow-
on actions or what the cost per product would be.

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 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 this 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),
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 AD:

CENTRAIR: Docket No. FAA-2014-0018; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-
049-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CENTRAIR Models 101, 101A, 101P, and 101AP
gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as structural
damage to the fuselage. We are issuing this proposed AD to detect
and correct structural damage not identified during routine
maintenance inspections, which could lead to reduced structural
integrity of the glider.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
    (1) Within 25 days after the effective date of this AD and
repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 12 months,
inspect all fuselage frames and ribs following the instructions in
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle CENTRAIR Mandatory Service Bulletin
101-06, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2013.
    (2) If structural damage is detected during any inspection
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight,
contact Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle CENTRAIR at the address
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD to obtain FAA-approved repair
instructions approved specifically for this AD, and before further
flight, repair the glider using these repair instructions.
    (3) Accomplishment of a repair, as required by paragraph (f)(2)
of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the
inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (f) of this AD:  We recommend that you
inspect the fuselage frames and ribs after the occurrence of any of
the following events following the instructions in
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle CENTRAIR Mandatory Service Bulletin
101-06, Revision 1, dated August 5, 2013: Landing with retracted
gear, landing gear retraction during landing run, ground looping
during take-off or landing, hard landing, or damage of internal
structure of the fuselage. If structural damage is detected during
any of these inspections, we recommend you contact
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle CENTRAIR at the address specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD for approved repair instructions.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, 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.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0258, dated October 25, 2013, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0018. For
service information related to this AD, contact
Soci[eacute]t[eacute] Nouvelle CENTRAIR, Aerodrome B.P. 44, F-36300
LeBlanc, France; telephone: +33(0)254370796, fax: +33(0)254374864,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: none. You may review this
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 8, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-00627 Filed 1-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REFRACTURE FREQUENCY

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4246-54
Organization:  Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC)
Commenter:  Kath Z. Klaber

Comment Excerpt Text:
Issue 13. In the TSD, EPA states that "10 percent of the wells being re-fractured annually (as previously assumed in Subpart W's Technical Supporting Document3). MSC understands that this 10% re-fracture frequency per year was originally developed based on a single paper which evaluated the post re-stimulation performance of five (5) wells in the Barnett shale area which was then incorrectly applied to unconventional wells across the country. MSC requests that EPA fully and completely explain the derivation of the 10% re-stimulation frequency per year, rather than simply referencing the technical support document for Subpart W which simply makes the 10% assumption with no explanation or backup information. As the largest single reduction category in the proposed rule this explanation is necessary to add any credibility to EPA's analysis. It is the contention of MSC members that the re-stimulation rate more realistically falls somewhere between 1 and 2 percent.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4251-24
Organization:  Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc.
Commenter:  Gretchen C. Kern

Comment Excerpt Text:
If EPA proceeds with regulating recompletions, it should reevaluate its assumption for the frequency of recompletions. In 2010, Pioneer refractured less than one-percent of its gas wells. This percentage varies significantly from EPA's ten-percent refrac figure. If EPA proceeds with the regulation of recompletions, it should recalculate the cost-effectiveness using updated estimates of emissions and VOC content, as discussed above, as well as recompletion frequency.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4266-218
Organization:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Commenter:  Howard J. Feldman

Comment Excerpt Text:
15.11. Over Estimate of Number Recompletions per Year

In the TSD, EPA states that "10 percent of the wells being re-fractured annually (as previously assumed in Subpart W's Technical Supporting Document3). From anecdotal information, API understands that this 10% re-fracture frequency per year was originally from work underlying the National Inventory and was developed based on one paper which evaluated the post re-stimulation performance of five (5) wells in the Barnett shale area which was then extrapolated to the population of unconventional wells nationwide. Obviously relying on extrapolation of somewhat unrelated information on five (5) wells in one area and one formation to the nationwide population of unconventional wells is completely unsupportable. API requests that EPA fully and completely explain the derivation of the 10% re-stimulation frequency per year rather than simply referencing the technical support document for Subpart W which simply makes the 10% assumption with no explanation or backup information. As the largest single reduction category in the proposed rule, this explanation is necessary to reasonably support EPA's analysis.

According to a 1996 study by the Gas Research Institute (GRI) [Footnote O: Reeves, S.R.: "Assessment of Technology Barriers and Potential Benefits of Restimulation R&D for Natural Gas Wells", Final Report, GRI- 96/0267, July, 1996.], only 2-3% of wells are refractured. This study found that only 15% of the well populations are potentially high potential restimulation candidates which should be subjected to additional analysis. Another study done in 1999 that was presented in a paper at a Society of Petroleum Engineers conference [Footnote P: Reeves, S.R., Hill, D.G., Tiner, R.L, Bastian, P.A, Conway, M.W. and Mohaghegh, S.: "Restimulation of Tight Gas Sand Wells in the Rocky Mountain Region", SPE 55627, Proceedings of the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Gillette, May 15-19, 1999.], showed that further analysis must be done to determine whether these 15% would actually benefit from restimulation. This paper presented an analysis of some 300 tight sand wells which had originally been hydraulic fracture stimulated, high-graded the top 15% of candidate wells for further evaluation and ultimately reduced the wells recommended for restimulation to five (5) of which 2 had been restimulated at the time the paper was written. In other words, only a small number (~2% of the total wells) of the top 15% candidate wells would actually be economic to restimulate anytime in their life. Other developing information suggests the percentage of wells refractured annually is less than 1%. Applying a 1% restimulation rate per year rather than a 10% would reduce the projected number of affected units to ~1,205 rather than 12,050 (90% reduction) and reduce the emissions reductions by the same magnitude.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4241-15
Organization:  America?s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA), American Exploration and Petroleum Council (AXPC)
Commenter:  Amy Farrell

Comment Excerpt Text:
G. Recompletions

If EPA proceeds with the regulation of recompletions, before doing so it should reevaluate its assumption for the frequency of recompletions. A preliminary review of data collected by industry suggests that the actual frequency of recompletions is significantly lower than the 10 percent assumed by EPA. ANGA and AXPC would like to work with EPA to develop a more appropriate estimate. Before we can do this, however, we need to resolve a discrepancy with the domestic well inventory used by EPA. The data made available by EPA through the rulemaking docket[FN 32: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512-0020.] has significantly fewer wells than EIA's estimate of the number of producing gas wells in the U.S. [FN 33:Energy Information Agency, Number of Producing Gas Wells. September 29, 2011 Release. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_wells_s1_a.htm.] EPA has indicated that it will not be able to address this discrepancy until after the close of the comment period. We would welcome the opportunity to work with EPA to resolve the discrepancy and develop a more appropriate well recompletion frequency estimate.