[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10581-10582]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1652]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Dispute Resolution
Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products by the Center for
Veterinary Medicine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by March 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0566. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions on Products
by the Center for Veterinary Medicine--21 CFR 10.75

OMB Control Number 0910-0566--Extension

    The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) Guidance for Industry
(GFI) #79, ``Dispute Resolution Procedures for Science-Based Decisions
on Products Regulated by the Center for Veterinary Medicine'' (https://www.fda.gov/media/70279/download), describes the process by which CVM
formally resolves disputes relating to scientific controversies. A
scientific controversy involves issues concerning a specific product
regulated by CVM related to matters of technical expertise and requires
specialized education, training, or experience to be understood and
resolved. The guidance details information on how CVM intends to apply
provisions of existing regulations regarding internal review of Agency
decisions. In addition, the guidance outlines the established
procedures for persons who are sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers
of animal drugs or other products regulated by CVM who wish to submit a
request for review of a scientific dispute. When a sponsor, applicant,
or manufacturer has a scientific disagreement with a written decision
by CVM, they may submit a request for a review of that decision by
following the established procedures discussed in the guidance.
    CVM encourages applicants to begin the resolution of science-based
disputes with discussions with the review team/group, including the
Team Leader or Division Director. The Center prefers that differences
of opinion regarding science or science-based policy be resolved
between the review team/group and the applicant. If the matter is not
resolved by this preferred method, then CVM recommends that the
applicant follow the procedures found in GFI #79.
    In the Federal Register of August 18, 2020 (85 FR 50827), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
      21 CFR part; activity          Number of     responses per   Total  annual    burden per     Total  hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.75, Request for review of a                 1               4               4              10              40
 scientific dispute.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    We note that the 60-day notice included an inadvertent error in the
estimated burden, which has been corrected in table 1. Based on a
review of the information collection since our last request for OMB
approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.

    Dated: February 11, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-03431 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60424]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13486-001]

FFP Project 76 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On September 4, 2012, FFP Project 76, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project
located on the Mississippi River, near Elaine, in Phillips County,
Arkansas and Coahoma County, Mississippi. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Burke Landing hydrokinetic project would consist of
the following: (1) Up to 1,490 SmarTurbine generating units installed
in arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 59,600 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables would
convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a transmission
line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 135,544,000 kilowatt-hours, which
would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13486) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24359 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 81 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22758-22760]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0004]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt nine individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on April 17, 2021. The exemptions
expire on April 17, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0004, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next,

sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice
listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone
is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On March 17, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from nine individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (86 FR 14670). The public comment period ended on April 16,
2021, and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Shayla Britt
submitted a comment in support of the Agency's decision to grant the
exemptions.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the March 17, 2021, Federal
Register notice (86 FR 14670) and will not be repeated here.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The nine
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, cataracts, optic nerve coloboma,
optic neuropathy, and retinal detachment. In most cases, their eye
conditions did not develop recently. Seven of the applicants were
either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood. The two individuals that developed their vision conditions
as adults have had them for a range of 13 to 20 years. Although each
applicant has one eye that does not meet the vision requirement in
Sec.  391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the
other eye, and, in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform
all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We
believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history
provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations,
involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and
on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in
congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and
vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction
to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances
between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and
driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging from 3 to 80 years. In the past 3 years, one
driver was involved in a crash, and one driver was convicted of a
moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a record of
safety while driving with their vision impairment that demonstrates the
likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate
their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their
vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified medical examiner (ME) who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under Sec.  391.41; (2)
each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this

exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the nine exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, Sec.
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Jack A. Hemelgarn (MN)
Joshua D. Kelley (TX)
Richard T. Kessen (IL)
Charles W. McClister III (PA)
Craig Neblett (MO)
John G. Shaver (NC)
Robert L. Strange, Jr. (NC)
Scott E. Wertman (NC)
Thomas L. Wiles (NJ)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption
will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of
the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-08894 Filed 4-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9013]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-02766]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 30905; File No. 812-14124]

KKR Series Trust and Prisma Capital Partners LP; Notice of
Application

February 4, 2014.

Correction

    In notice document 2014-02766, appearing on pages 7719-7722 in the
issue of Monday, February 10, 2014, make the following correction:
    On page 7719, in the first column, the date, which was
inadvertently omitted from the document heading, is added to read as
set forth above.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-02766 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41466-41468]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0464; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-002-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously
Eurocopter France) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2013-18-
01 for Eurocopter France Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-
365N2, AS-365-N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters. AD 2013-18-01 currently
requires inspecting the collective pitch lever for correct locking and
unlocking conditions. As published, AD 2013-18-01 contains certain
errors. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2013-18-
01, correct these errors, and update the type certificate holder's
name. The proposed actions are intended to detect an incorrectly
adjusted collective pitch lever, which could result in loss of control
of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 15,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On August 21, 2013, we issued AD 2013-18-01, amendment 39-17574 (78
FR 56599, September 13, 2013) for Eurocopter France Model EC 155B,
EC155B1, SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1
helicopters, except helicopters with modification (MOD) 0767B5
installed. AD 2013-18-01 requires inspecting the collective pitch lever
for correct unlocking with a spring scale, and if required, adjusting
the collective pitch lever restraining tab and, for certain models,
adjusting the collective link rods. AD 2013-18-01 also requires
inspecting the collective pitch lever for the risk of inadvertent
locking by measuring the clearance between the locking pin of the
collective pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab, and if
required, modifying the tab with a slight bend to the tab.
    AD 2013-18-01 was prompted by AD No. 2011-0154, dated August 22,
2011, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2011-0154 to correct an
unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N, SA-
365N1, AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters. EASA advises that
two occurrences have been reported of inadvertent locking and unlocking
of the collective pitch lever. One inadvertent collective pitch lever
locking occurred when moving the collective pitch lever to the low-
pitch position, and one inadvertent collective pitch lever unlocking
occurred during

engine start. To address this unsafe condition, Eurocopter issued AS
365 Alert Telex No. 67.00.10, SA 366 Alert Telex No. 67.05, and EC 155
Alert Telex No. 67A007, which describe procedures to inspect the
collective pitch lever for correct locking and unlocking conditions.
This inspection was mandated by Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) France AD No. F-2005-127, dated July 20, 2005.
DGAC subsequently revised its AD, No. F-2005-127 R1, dated February 1,
2006 (DGAC AD F-2005-127 R1), after Eurocopter issued Alert Service
Bulletins containing the same inspection procedures and bearing the
same numbers as the Alert Telexes. Since the issuance of DGAC AD F-
2005-127 R1 Eurocopter developed an assembly comprised of a blade, a
hinge, and a return spring to replace the flexible collective lever
locking blade as terminating action for the inspection required by the
AD. EASA then issued AD No. 2011-0154, which superseded DGAC AD F-2005-
127 R1, retaining the inspection procedures for the collective pitch
lever and removing from the applicability helicopters with the hinged,
spring-loaded collective lever locking blade installed, designated as
MOD 0767B65.
    As published, the AD number after the amendatory language section
of AD 2013-18-01 is incorrect. The AD number was published as ``2013-
18-11.'' The MOD number in paragraph (a), Applicability, of the AD is
incorrect. The correct MOD number is 0767B65. Also, since we issued AD
2013-18-01, the type certificate holder's name for the affected models
has changed from Eurocopter France to Airbus Helicopters. No other part
of the regulatory information would be changed.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) No. 67.00.10 for Model AS365 helicopters, ASB No. 67.05
for Model SA366 helicopters, and ASB No. 67A007 for Model EC155
helicopters. All three ASBs are Revision 1 and are dated February 25,
2009. These ASBs describe procedures for inspecting and adjusting the
collective pitch lever for correct locking and unlocking conditions.
    Eurocopter has also issued ASB No. 67.00.12, Revision 0, dated
February 25, 2009, for Model AS365 helicopters; ASB No. 67.07, Revision
0, dated February 25, 2009, for Model AS366 helicopters; and ASB No.
67-009, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, for Model EC 155 helicopters.
These ASBs contain the procedures for MOD 0767B65.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the inspection and adjustment
requirements of AD 2013-18-01. It would also would correct the AD
number after the amendatory language, correct the MOD number in
paragraph (a), and reflect the current type certificate holder's name
and contact information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 32 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this proposed AD. Inspecting and adjusting the
collective pitch lever would require about 1 work hour at an average
labor rate of $85 per hour, for a total cost per helicopter of $85 and
a cost to U.S. operators of $2,720.

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, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-18-
01, Amendment 39-17574 (78 FR 56599, September 13, 2013), and adding
the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France): Docket No. FAA-
2014-0464; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-002-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N, SA-365N1,
AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, and SA-366G1 helicopters, except helicopters
with modification (MOD) 0767B65 installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as inadvertent locking and
unlocking of the collective pitch lever, which could result in
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected AD

    This AD supersedes AD 2013-18-01, Amendment 39-17574 (78 FR
56599, September 13, 2013).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 15, 2014.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    Within 50 hours time-in-service:
    (1) For Model EC155B and EC155B1 helicopters:
    (i) Lock the collective pitch lever, and using a spring scale,
measure the load (G) required to unlock the pilot's collective pitch
lever as depicted in Figure 1, Detail B of Eurocopter Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) No. 67A007, Revision 1, dated February 25, 2009 (ASB
67A007).
    (ii) If the collective pitch lever unlocks at a load less than
11 deca Newtons (daN) (24.7 lbs) or greater than 14 daN (31.5 lbs),
before further flight, adjust the collective pitch lever restraining
tab (F) using the oblong holes.
    (iii) Set the collective pitch lever to the ``low pitch''
position and hold it in this position, without forcing it downwards.
    (iv) Measure the clearance (J1) between the locking pin of the
collective pitch lever (C) and the L-section of the restraining tab
(F) as depicted in Figure 1, Detail A of ASB 67A007.
    (v) If the clearance between the locking pin of the collective
pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab is less than 3
millimeters (mm), before further flight, remove the restraining tab,
clamp the restraining tab (F) in a vice with soft jaws, and
gradually apply a load (H) to ensure a clearance of 3 mm or more, as
depicted in Figure 1, Detail K of ASB 67A007.
    (2) For Model SA-365N, SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and AS 365 N3
helicopters:
    (i) Completely loosen the friction, lock the collective pitch
lever, and using a spring scale, measure the load (G) required to
unlock the pilot's collective pitch lever as depicted in Figure 1,
Detail B of Eurocopter ASB No. 67.00.10, Revision 1, dated February
25, 2009 (ASB 67.00.10).
    (ii) If the collective pitch lever unlocks at a load less than 5
daN (11.3 lbs) or greater than 14 daN (31.5 lbs), before further
flight, adjust the collective pitch lever restraining tab (F) using
the oblong holes and adjust the collective link rods as described in
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.4., of ASB 67.00.10.
    (iii) Set the collective pitch lever to the ``low pitch''
position and hold it in this position, without forcing it downwards.
    (iv) Tighten the friction lock and measure the clearance (J1)
between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever (C) and the L-
section of the restraining tab (F) as depicted in Figure 1, Detail A
of ASB 67.00.10.
    (v) If the clearance between the locking pin of the collective
pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab is less than 3
mm, before further flight, remove the restraining tab, clamp the
restraining tab (F) in a vice with soft jaws, and gradually apply a
load (H) to ensure a clearance of 3 mm or more, as depicted in
Figure 1, Detail K, of ASB 67.00.10.
    (3) For Model SA-366G1 helicopters:
    (i) Completely loosen the friction, lock the collective pitch
lever, and using a spring scale, measure the load (G) required to
unlock the pilot's collective pitch lever as depicted in Figure 1,
Detail B of Eurocopter ASB No. 67.05, Revision 1, dated February 25,
2009 (ASB 67.05).
    (ii) If the collective pitch lever unlocks at a load less than 5
daN (11.3 lbs) or greater than 14 daN (31.5 lbs), before further
flight, adjust the collective pitch lever restraining tab (F) using
the oblong holes and adjust the collective link rods as described in
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.4., of ASB 67.05.
    (iii) Set the collective pitch lever to the ``low pitch''
position and hold it in this position, without forcing it downwards.
    (iv) Tighten the friction lock and measure the clearance (J1)
between the locking pin of the collective pitch lever (C) and the L-
section of the restraining tab (F) as depicted in Figure 1, Detail
A, of ASB 67.05.
    (v) If the clearance between the locking pin of the collective
pitch lever and the L-section of the restraining tab is less than 3
mm, before further flight, remove the restraining tab, clamp the
restraining tab (F) in a vice with soft jaws, and gradually apply a
load (H) to ensure a clearance of 3 mm or more, as depicted in
Figure 1, Detail K, of ASB 67.05.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 67.00.12,
Revision 0, dated February 25, 2009; ASB No. 67.07, Revision 0,
dated February 25, 2009; and ASB No. 67-009, Revision 1, dated July
19, 2010, which are not incorporated by reference, contain
additional information about this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N.
Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(800) 232-0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review a copy of the
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2011-0154, dated August 22, 2011. You
may view the EASA AD in the AD Docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

 (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710: Main Rotor
Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 8, 2014.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-16682 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


316B RULE TELEPHONE LOG Name of Caller: John Sunda, SAIC Date: July 29, 2002 Company Name: Johnson Screens Street Address:

City/ State/ ZIP: New Brighton, MN 55112 Person Contacted: Hank Wells Title: Sales Manager Telephone #: 651 638 3287 Fax 651 638 3177 The following questions had been submitted to Mr wells previously. Mr Wells stated that Equipment Cost data is of a sensitive nature and will require consultation with other employees I explained that it could be submitted in a business confidential manner if necessary. He was going to follwup after consulting with other employees.

Reponse to Questions obtained by phone from Hank Wells, Johnson Filter All reponse information is presented in red line italics QUESTIONS FOR PASSIVE SCREEN VENDORS July 29, 2002 The following questions involve retrofitting passive intake screens onto existing intakes most of which already include traveling screens..

The following questions cover the breadth of information being sought but admittedly are somewhat extensive. Those shown in non bold print are generally require brief or quality responses and are intended to be discussed over the phone. Questions in bold print may require research and may best be presented in a follow up context.

He stated that he would need to consult with others concerning release of cost information.

General 1. Are there any specific types of locations, waterbodies, or regions where applications are limited? Minimal depth of less than 2 ft due to clearance requirements. Stagnant water with high debris load. Passive screens have been installed at end of canals/ channels but not if debris is high 2. Previous equipment supplier contacts have indicated power plants with large volume requirements have been reluctant to, or claim to be unable to, use passive screens. What are the issues or limitations regarding retrofitting large volume systems with passive screens? Has the situation changed, and what is the largest volume intake where you have installed passive screens? Was not aware of or had nothing to add concerning industry attitude. Largest screen is the T 96 which would typically use No 93 wire ( 93 1/ 1000 of an inch). They have recently beeen asked for quotes on power plants with flows in the 300,000 to 400,000 gpm range. He seemed to think that passive screens were the selected technology.

3. What portion of intake modification work do you do? For example, if retrofitting traveling screen intakes with passive screens, do you provide only the screen equipment or do you also: They provide screens and backwash system only. Interconnecting pipe and installation are provided by local contractors. Intake contractors include: CH2MHill Montgomery Watson Bechtel CEM? He also has trouble coming up with costs of piping and structural requirements when trying to compare different options for customers  Provide manifold pipe and fittings No  Provide steel plates or other fittings to cover existing intake opening with t screen pipe attachment No  Provide installation No 4. What is the recommended range or typical design through screen intake velocity and/ or approach velocity? Since the application being considered here is in response to a requirement to reduce entrainment and impingement, what is the practical upper limit for ensuring acceptable performance? Generally in the east it is 0.5 fps through screen velocity. In the west it is the NMFS requirement of 0.4 fps approach velocity. When asked whether a higher velocity was compatible with system operation he said 1.0 fps would be acceptable but that as the velocity increases blockage and pressure drop across the screen would be an issue.

5. What range of screen mesh opening sizes do you consider to be " fine mesh?" When facilities examine and/ or select finer mesh to reduce entrainment, what is the most common mesh size? Are there any differences in the fine mesh sizes commonly evaluated and/ or selected for new intakes versus existing intake retrofits? An awkward question. Generally, drinking water intakes use 1/ 8 inch. For reducing entrainment of fish eggs 1.75 mm ( NMFS reqirement). Anything less than 1.0 mm is rare.

Shoreline Intake Retrofit 6. When multiple rows of screens are needed does it ever make sense to stack the rows vertically along the intake face? It is not unusual in reservoirs to stack intakes on a tower. They are not always used at the same time. Sometimes water quality and temperature will dictate from which depth water is taken.

7. An obvious solution would be to place additional rows of t screens extending outward along the bottom but near the shoreline ( such as the multi Tee system) . How often is this done and what are the limitations? This is very routine. If waterway obstruction or debris is an issue, a diversion structure such as a bypass canal may be included.

8. When does it make more sense to place the t screens further offshore? Farther out costs more but generally get better quality water.

9. We assume that moving the intakes from the shoreline to near shore or offshore into public waterways will involve more public and government consultation and permitting. Do you have any knowledge or examples of how this may affect costs? This is the contractors area. He did note that his understanding is that the placement of new shoreline structures is the most sensitive issue with respect to public participation.

10. Are most near shore retrofit installations performed by divers or is a coffer dam type structure used to provide a dry working environment? What conditions affect the selected method of installation? Coffer dams are preferred except in deep locations. Certainly the screens can be installed by divers.

Installing Passive Screens Offshore.

The following questions involve the options of adding passive screens to existing offshore intakes and relocating shoreline intakes offshore.

11. Do you have any experience with installing passive screens on submerged offshore intakes that previously had none? If so:  Please provide relevant information such as facility name & location, cost data, technical data, and general layout. If not available, who should we contact for such information? Gave no specific example but said that this was not uncommon. Such a project could involve getting a diver to weld a flange ( or cut the pipe then weld a flange onto the pipe end. The screen or manifold could then be bolted onto the end.

12. Excluding differences in equipment costs, how would installing passive screens compare to installing velocity caps? No difference see above.

13. For rivers/ lakes with boat traffic, what are the recommended clearance depths ( depth of water above the screen)? Generally he would select a depth of twice the boats draft. 5 to 10 ft would be minimum 14. Do you have any experience with or knowledge of converting shoreline based intakes to submerged offshore intakes? If so:  At what facilities was this done? No examples given  What specifically was done and what portions of the existing system were retained? Often the existing structure is replaced by the new intake or the existing system is kept as a option. Many of their projects are drinking water system upgrades where the capacity is being increased.  What are the major cost components?

15. For large volume offshore intakes, we assume an array of t screens may be necessary for each pipe. If so:  What sort of retrofit construction would be necessary? See answer to Question 11  Could the manifold be manufactured onshore and installed by divers, or would some sort of underwater manifold construction be necessary? Could be assembled by divers  Please describe construction components, example costs, and/ or contacts for estimating costs.

16. Please provide delivered equipment costs for t screens ( freshwater and saltwater) plus unit costs for pipe manifold components ( e. g., multi Tee system) or totals if possible. See sizes below.

 T 24  T 36  T 48  T 60  T 72  T 84  T 96 ( or largest standard screen size) Are there any savings for multiple unit orders? As mentioned earlier, questions regarding costs will require consultation with others concerning release of cost information. 17. How do t screen costs compare to traveling screens with similar performance requirements? When asked for comparison to traveling screens he said that the equipment costs ( screens and backwash system only) should be 50% ( or less) than traveling screens ( equipment only). However, his information concerning traveling screen costs are generally second hand and therefore he can not be certain.

18. What equipment materials do you recommend ( or are commonly selected) for freshwater and for corrosive environments such as brackish and saltwater?  304 Stainless Steel is standard for freshwater  316 Stainless Steel is used in brackish water and should increase cost by about 20% over 304 SS Z Alloy is their high copper nickel alloy used to inhibit Zebra Mussels. This alloy is also very good for saltwater corrosion resistance and is often used in offshore oil & gas platforms. This alloy adds about 100% or nearly doubles the intake screen costs.

19. What waterbodies are experiencing problems with Zebra mussels, and how much extra are the equipment costs for special alloy construction or comparable materials? EPA has a map that would serve as a good source. Generally, everything east of the Rockies. See above for relative price.

20. Please provide equipment cost of this corrosion resistant equipment or provide relative cost difference compared to freshwater unit, such as a cost factor or percent increase? See Question 16 21. Please provide delivered and/ or installed costs for an air burst backwash system, including air burst distribution and control equipment, air connection tubing and fittings for systems with flows from 2,000 gpm to 500,000 gpm, or relative costs in comparison to the tscreen equipment costs. Asked for cost as a general percentage of the screen/ backwash package. For small systems it can be 85% ( example of small was a single T 18). For a large system such as a power plant it would be around 15%.

22. Please provide information concerning passive screen installation costs for both shoreline and submerged offshore intakes, particularly as compared to equipment costs.

He stated that he would need to consult with others concerning release of cost information. However, since they do not perform installation I do not expect any costs of this sort.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46984-46985]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0869]

Pfizer, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Drug Application
for BEXTRA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval
of a new drug application (NDA) for BEXTRA (valdecoxib) 10 milligram
(mg) and 20 mg Tablets, held by Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer), 235 East 42nd
St., New York, NY 10017-5755. Pfizer has voluntarily requested that
approval of this application be withdrawn and has waived its
opportunity for a hearing.

DATES: Effective August 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA approved BEXTRA (valdecoxib) 10 mg and
20 mg Tablets on November 16, 2001. BEXTRA is indicated for relief of
the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis
and for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. On April 7, 2005, FDA
announced that it had concluded that the overall risk versus benefit
profile of BEXTRA was unfavorable and that it had asked Pfizer to
voluntarily withdraw BEXTRA from the market. Pfizer agreed and
voluntarily suspended all sales and marketing of BEXTRA on July 21,
2005. In letters dated May 27, 2011, August 8,

2011, and October 31, 2011, Pfizer requested that FDA withdraw approval
of NDA 21-341 for BEXTRA. In the letter dated October 31, 2011, Pfizer
waived any opportunity for a hearing otherwise provided under 21 CFR
314.150 (Sec.  314.150). In FDA's letter of November 9, 2011,
responding to Pfizer's letters dated May 27, 2011, August 8, 2011, and
October 31, 2011, the Agency acknowledged Pfizer's request to withdraw
approval of BEXTRA under Sec.  314.150(d) and waive its opportunity for
a hearing.
    Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and Sec.  314.150(d),
and under authority delegated by the Commissioner to the Director,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, approval of NDA 21-341, and
all amendments and supplements thereto, is withdrawn (see DATES).
Distribution of this product in interstate commerce without an approved
application is illegal and subject to regulatory action (see sections
505(a) and 301(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(a) and 331(d)).

    Dated: July 30, 2013.
Janet Woodcock,
Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2013-18657 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 36304]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2474-008.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Market-Based Rate Tariff, Volume No. 7 Amendment to be
effective 2/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2475-008.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Market-Based Rate Tariff, Volume No. 11 Amendment to
be effective 2/3/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-275-001.
    Applicants: DTE Electric Company.
    Description: Clinton Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2209-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
    Description: 2nd Amended filing to RS 193 Cargill-DEP to be
effective 6/14/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2222-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 273--Hassayampa--North Gila 500kV.
Particpation Agreement to be effective 8/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2223-000.
    Applicants: Sabine Cogen, LP.
    Description: Sabine Category Change Amendment Filing to be
effective 6/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2224-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC.
    Description: TFO Tariff Interim Rate Revision to Conform with PUCT-
Approved ERCOT Rate to be effective 5/12/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 19, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14982 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


TABLE 4a ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ( NESHAPS) SUBPART NNN

WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING  YEAR 1*

REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 1 1 1 9 9 0.45 0.9 10.35 $ 558.71 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 980 1 980 9 8820 441 882 10143 $ 547,532.37 Repeat of Performance Tests 980 0.2 196 1.8 352.8 17.64 35.28 405.72 $ 21,901.29 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring Plan 40 1 40 9 360 18 36 414 $ 22,348.26 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 1 40 9 360 18 36 414 $ 22,348.26 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Applicability** 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 2.3 $ 124.16 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 9 18 0.9 1.8 20.7 $ 1,117.41 Notification of Compliance Status 2 1 2 9 18 0.9 1.8 20.7 $ 1,117.41 Request for Extension of Compliance,

Adjustments to Time Periods, and Changes in Information 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 2.3 $ 124.16 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b

Excess Emissions Report 16 2 32 1.6 51.2 2.56 5.12 58.88 $ 3,178.42 Report of No Excess Emissions 1 2 2 6.4 12.8 0.64 1.28 14.72 $ 794.60 Quality Improvement Plan 40 1 40 0.9 36 1.8 3.6 41.4 $ 2,234.83 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report 8 2 16 1 16 0.8 1.6 18.4 $ 993.26 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions  Included in 3a

b. Plan Activities  Included in 3b

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3b

d. Develop Record System N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

e. Time to Enter Information Record of Operating Parameters and Emissions 9 52 468 8 3744 187.2 374.4 4305.6 $ 232,421.90 f. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A g. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 13802 690 1380 15872.07 $ 856,795.04 TABLE 4b ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ( NESHAPS) SUBPART NNN

WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING  YEAR 2 REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 1 1 1 9 9 0.45 0.9 10.35 $ 558.71 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 980 1 980 9 8820 441 882 10143 $ 547,532.37 Repeat of Performance Tests 980 0.2 196 1.8 352.8 17.64 35.28 405.72 $ 21,901.29 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring Plan 40 1 40 9 360 18 36 414 $ 22,348.26 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 1 40 9 360 18 36 414 $ 22,348.26 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Applicability 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 2.3 $ 124.16 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 9 18 0.9 1.8 20.7 $ 1,117.41 Notification of Compliance Status 2 1 2 9 18 0.9 1.8 20.7 $ 1,117.41 Request for Extension of Compliance,

Adjustments to Time Periods, and Changes in Information 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 2.3 $ 124.16 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b

Excess Emissions Report 16 2 32 3.2 102.4 5.12 10.24 117.76 $ 6,356.84 Report of No Excess Emissions 1 2 2 12.8 25.6 1.28 2.56 29.44 $ 1,589.21 Quality Improvement Plan 40 1 40 1.7 68 3.4 6.8 78.2 $ 4,221.34 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report 8 2 16 1 16 0.8 1.6 18.4 $ 993.26 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions  Included in 3a

b. Plan Activities  Included in 3b

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3b REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

d. Develop Record System N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A e. Time to Enter Information Record of Operating Parameters and Emissions 9 52 468 17 7956 397.8 795.6 9149.4 $ 493,896.55 f. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A g. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 18110 905 1811 20826.27 $ 1,124,229.22 TABLE 4c ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ( NESHAPS) SUBPART NNN

WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING YEAR 3 REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

1. APPLICATIONS N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 2. SURVEY AND STUDIES N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 b. Required Activities Initial Performance Tests 980 1 980 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Repeat of Performance Tests 980 0.2 196 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Operations, Maintenance, Monitoring Plan 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 c. Create Information  Included in 3b

d. Gather Existing Information  Included in 3b

e. Write Report Notification of Applicability 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 2.3 $ 124.16 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Notification of Compliance Status 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0.00 Request for Extension of Compliance,

Adjustments to Time Periods, and Changes in Information 2 1 2 1 2 0.1 0.2 2.3 $ 124.16 Report of Performance Test  Included in 3b

Excess Emissions Report 16 2 32 5.2 166.4 8.32 16.64 191.36 $ 10,329.86 Report of No Excess Emissions 1 2 2 20.8 41.6 2.08 4.16 47.84 $ 2,582.47 Quality Improvement Plan 40 1 40 2.6 104 5.2 10.4 119.6 $ 6,456.16 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Report 8 2 16 1 16 0.8 1.6 18.4 $ 993.26 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS a. Read Instructions  Included in 3a

b. Plan Activities  Included in 3b

c. Implement Activities  Included in 3b

d. Develop Record System N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A REPORTING/ RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENT Hours/ Occurence ( A) Occurences/

Year ( B) Hours/ Year ( C= A* B)

( C) Respondents/

Year ( D) Technical Hours/ Year ( E) Management Hours/ Year ( E* 0.05) Admin.

Hours/ Yr.

( E* 0.1) Hours/ Year ( F) Costs/ Year ( G)

e. Time to Enter Information Record of Operating Parameters and Emissions 9 52 468 26 12168 608.4 1216.8 13993.2 $ 755,371.19 f. Train Personnel N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A g. Audits N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 12500 625 1250 14375 $ 775,981.25 Assumptions Number of affected facilities* 26 Number of new facilities ( per year) 0 Time required to read instructions ( hours) 1 Time required to complete performance test ( hours) 980 Rate of failed performance tests 20%

Time required to prepare the Operation, Maintain,

Monitoring Plan 40 Time required to prepare the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 40 Time required to prepare the Quality Improvement Plan 40 Time required to record operating parameters ( hours) 0.25 Time required to record info required by standard ( hours/

week) 9 Number of startups, shutdowns, malfuctions, etc. ( per year ) 2 Time required to prepare the Excess Emission Reports 16 Percent of facilities preparing Excess Emissions Reports 20%

Time required to prepare No Excess Emissions Reports 1 Percent of facilities preparing No Excess Emissions Reports 80%

Time required to prepare Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports 8 Estimated number of facilities that will submit startup,

shutdown, and malfunction reports 1 Estimated number of requests for extension/ adjustments to time periods/ changes in info ( hours) 1 Time required for notification preparation/ requests for extensions/ adjustments to time periods/ changes in info( hours) 2 Management labor rate $ 73.93 Technicial labor rate $ 54.94 Adminstrative labor rate $ 34.42 * Industry has until the compliance date ( 6/ 14/ 02) to come into compliance with this standard. We are assuming that eight exisiting facilities will come into compliance in the first year following the effective date, nine facilities in the second year, and the remaining nine facilities in the third year. Note that this ICR covers the second,

third and fourth years following the effective date.

** All notification of applicability for existing facilities were submitted within 180 days of the effective date ( 12/ 14/ 99)


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 150 (Monday, August 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43440-43443]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16559]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0617; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00385-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all 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). This proposed AD was prompted
by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact

EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; 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,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0617.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0617; 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 NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0617; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00385-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0093, dated March 30, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0093) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A300-600 series airplanes.
    EASA AD 2021-0093 specifies that it requires tasks (limitations)
already required by EASA AD 2019-0090 (which corresponds to FAA AD
2019-21-01, Amendment 39-19767 (84 FR 56935, October 24, 2019) (AD
2019-21-01)) and EASA AD 2020-0111R2 (which corresponds to FAA AD 2020-
23-11, Amendment 39-21327 (85 FR 75838, November 27, 2020) (AD 2020-23-
11)) and invalidates prior instructions for those tasks. This proposed
AD would, for AD 2019-21-01 and AD 2020-23-11, terminate the limitation
for the tasks identified in the service information referred to in EASA
AD 2021-0093 only.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion in
principal structural elements, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0093 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
    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.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA has
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD
2021-0093 described previously, as incorporated by reference. Any
differences with EASA AD 2021-0093 are identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(k)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA

ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and
CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0093 by
reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore,
require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0093 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are
the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0093
does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For
example, where the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and
compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited
to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in
EASA AD 2021-0093. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0093
for compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0617 after the FAA final
rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals
are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in
accordance with the procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under
``Other FAA Provisions.'' This new format includes a ``New Provisions
for Alternative Actions and Intervals'' paragraph that does not
specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to
use an alternative action or interval.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 118 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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 airworthiness
directive:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-0617; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00385-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 23, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2019-21-01, Amendment 39-19767 (84 FR 56935,
October 24, 2019) (AD 2019-21-01) and AD 2020-23-11, Amendment 39-
21327 (85 FR 75838, November 27, 2020) (AD 2020-23-11).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-
620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant
F airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, damage, and corrosion
in principal structural elements, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the fuselage.

(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
2021-0093, dated March 30, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0093).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0093

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0093 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2021-0093 do not apply to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0093 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA 2021-0093 is at the applicable ``thresholds''
as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD
2021-0093, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (5) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) of EASA AD 2021-
0093 do not apply to this AD.
    (6) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0093 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals are allowed unless they are
approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications''
section of EASA AD 2021-0093.

(j) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of AD 2019-21-01 and AD
2020-23-11

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates the
corresponding requirements of AD 2019-21-01, for the tasks
identified in the service information referred to in EASA AD 2021-
0093 only.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates the
corresponding requirements of AD 2020-23-11, for the tasks
identified in the service information referred to in EASA AD 2021-
0093 only.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (l)(2) 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, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation 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): Except as required by
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those 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.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2021-0093, contact EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety 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 https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0617.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on July 29, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-16559 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P