[Federal Register: October 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 61465-61466]
[DOCID:fr18oc06-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820; FRL-8097-9]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment or
Amendment to Regulations for Residues of Coumaphos in or on Honey and
Honey Comb

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations for
residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0820 and pesticide petition number (PP)
2E6504, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0820. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this information on the home page

of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 2E6504. Interregional Research Project 4 (IR-4),
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes to establish a tolerance for
residues of the insecticide coumaphos (O,O-diethyl O-3-chloro-4-methyl-
2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphorothioate and its oxygen analog (O,O-
diethyl O-3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate) in or
on food commodities honey at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) and honeycomb
at 100 ppm. Two different liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry/ mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) analytical methods are used to measure and
evaluate the chemical residue(s).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 5, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-17100 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Modeling Information Provided by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) for the             Allegheny County Area PM2.5 Attainment Plan SIP Submittal

In addition to the SIP submittal files posted in the online docket at FDMS.gov, the ACHD PM2.5 attainment plan contains the following electronic modeling files that were part of the formal SIP submittal:

The modeling files, listed above, are either too large to be entered into regulations.gov (or are in an incompatible file format) and therefore cannot be added to the electronic docket.  Due to their format, they are also unable to be included in the paper docket.  Those interested in the modeling files for docket  EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0157 can contact:  Ellen Schmitt at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49300-49302]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21285]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0536; FRL-9983-66--Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Approval of the State Implementation
Plan and the Operating Permits Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Iowa State Implementation Plan (SIP), and the
Operating Permits Program to clarify submission requirements for
construction and operating permit applications. This action also
includes minor grammatical corrections. EPA reviewed these revisions
and determined that they will not impact air quality and will ensure
consistency between the state and federally approved rules.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0536. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP submission and
operating permits program been met?
III. EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This final action approves a revision from the state of Iowa to
revise the Iowa SIP and Operating Permits Program. EPA published in the
Federal Register the proposed approval of the State's submission on
July 26, 2018, at 83 FR 35451. The revisions to the SIP are to clarify
the types of mailing services that may be used for submitting
construction permit applications to include the U.S. Postal Service,
private parcel delivery services, and hand delivery. Construction
permit applications are not required to be submitted by certified mail.
The revisions also eliminate the requirement for construction permit
applications for projects that will not emit greenhouses gases to
submit the current three-page form.
    The revisions to the operating permits program clarifies the types
of mailing services that may be used for submitting operating permit
applications to include the U.S. Postal Service, private parcel
delivery services, and hand delivery. Operating permit applications are
not required to be submitted by certified mail. This revision to the
operating permits program is being made to require only one copy of the
operating permit application instead of two.
    This action also includes minor grammatical corrections to the SIP
for construction permit rules and minor

grammatical corrections to the operating permits program rules.

II. Have the requirements for approval of the SIP revisions and the
operating permits program been met?

    The state submittal met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, these revisions meet the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. These
revisions are also consistent with applicable EPA requirements of Title
V of the CAA and 40 CFR part 70. The submission was sent to EPA on
January 4, 2018, and received January 9, 2018.

III. EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed rule opened July 26,
2018, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on August 27, 2018. During this period, EPA received five comments
which are available in the docket; two in support of the proposed rule
revisions, and three comments that were outside of the scope of the
proposed rule. Therefore, EPA will not provide a specific response to
the comments.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    This final action approves revisions to the Iowa SIP and the
Operating Permits Program. The revisions clarify the types of mailing
services that may be used for submitting construction and operating
permit applications, and clarifies that applications are not required
to be submitted by certified mail. The revisions also eliminate the
requirement for construction permit applications or projects that will
not emit greenhouse gases (GHG) to submit the current separate three-
page GHG form. In addition, a revision to the operating permit program
is being made to require only one copy of the permit application
instead of two. Finally, this action includes minor grammatical
corrections.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a revision to
Iowa's Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7
Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion
in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference
by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections
110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking
of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 30, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 25, 2018.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52
and 70 as set forth below:

Part 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.820(c) by revising the entry ``567-22.1'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                          EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State
       Iowa citation                 Title          effective date    EPA approval date         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Chapter 22--Controlling Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
567-22.1...................  Permits Required for         12/13/17  10/1/2018, [Insert     Electronic submittal
                              New or Existing                        Federal Register       referred to in
                              Stationary Sources.                    citation].             22.1(3) is not SIP
                                                                                approved.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
4. Amend appendix A to part 70 by adding paragraph (s) under the
heading ``Iowa'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Iowa

* * * * *
    (s) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted for
program approval revisions to rule 567-22.105. Electronic submittal
referred to in 22.105 is not approved in the operating permits
program. The state effective date is December 13, 2017. This
revision is effective November 30, 2018.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21285 Filed 9-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38649-38652]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0005]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 26 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective July 8, 2014. The exemptions expire
on July 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, 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.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On May 14, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (79 FR 27681). That notice listed 26 applicants' case histories.
The 26 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 26 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle 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 (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 26
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 prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, amblyopia, acute
zonal occult outer retinopathy with central scotoma, corneal
transplant, retina damage, corneal scar, exotropia, strabismus,
cataracts, optic nerve disorder, macular degeneration, retinal
scarring, macular scar, hereditary macular dystrophy, complete loss of
vision, degenerative myopia, and central vein occlusion. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. Ten of the applicants
were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The sixteen individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 4 to 35 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 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 valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 26 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging from 2 to 52
years. In the past 3 years, one of the drivers was involved in a crash
and two were convicted for moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the May 14, 2014
notice (79 FR 27681).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence

that he/she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision
deficiency for the past 3 years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate past and future driving
performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the
best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record
of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found
at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 26 applicants, one of the drivers was involved in a crash and two
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating 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.
    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 veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 26 applicants listed in the notice of May 14,
2014 (79 FR 27681).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 26 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) that each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual 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 have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received eight comments in this proceeding. The comments are
discussed below.
    Karen Whitmer, Theo Rumble, Alyce Johnson, Steven Levine, Larry D.
Piner, Christopher L. Webb, Joel G. Arnette, Jr., and Rebecca McPhail
are all in favor of granting Glenn K. Johnson, Jr. an exemption from
the vision standard.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 26 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Lyle R. Bell (NE), Tracy L. Bowers (IA), Bradley E. Buzzell
(NH), William C. Christy (FL), Gerard J. Cormier (MA), Joe T. Gage
(AR), Hector A. Hernandez (MD), Rex G. Holladay (AR), Chestor E. Jaycox
(NY), Danny J. Johnson (MN), Glenn K. Johnson, Jr. (NC), Terry A.
Legates (OK), Charles E. Meis (TX), Ronald B. Mohr (IA), Hassan Ourahou
(KY), Jesus Penuelas (AZ), Enoc Ramos III (TX), James T. Rohr (MN),
DelRay V. Ryckman (SD), Joe Sanchez (TX), James S. Seeno (NV), George
W. Thomas (SC), Thomas L. Tveit (SD), Bart M. Valiante (CT), James W.
Van Ryswyk (IA), and Drake M. Vendsel (ND) from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49
CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (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 before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

     Issued on: June 30, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-15956 Filed 7-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51030-51031]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20968]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9452-5]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby
given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra
Club in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 1:10-cv-02112-JEB (D. DC). Plaintiffs filed
a complaint alleging that EPA failed to take timely action to approve
or disapprove, approve in part, or disapprove in part an Arkansas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision addressing regional haze dated July
29, 2008 (Arkansas Regional Haze SIP), as required by sections
110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA. The proposed consent decree establishes a
deadline of December 15, 2011 for EPA to take action on the Arkansas
Regional Haze SIP.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by September 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2011-0690, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lea Anderson, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by Sierra
Club seeking to compel the Agency to take final action under sections
110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA on an Arkansas Regional Haze SIP revision
dated July 29, 2008. The proposed consent decree requires that no later
than December 15, 2011, EPA shall sign a notice of final rulemaking in
which it approves or disapproves the Arkansas Regional Haze SIP
revision pursuant to sections 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7410(k)(2) and (3). In addition, the proposed consent decree requires
that following signature, EPA shall expeditiously deliver the notice to
the Office of the Federal Register for publication in the Federal
Register and shall provide a copy of the notice to Plaintiff within ten
(10) days. After EPA fulfills its obligations under the proposed
consent decree, the consent decree may be terminated.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the proposed consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2011-0690) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use http://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the

close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: August 10, 2011.
Patricia A. Embrey,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-20968 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


relaxation in any enforceable limitation which was established after
August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the source or modification otherwise
to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then
the requirements of paragraphs (j) through (s) of this section shall
apply to

the source or modification as though construction had not yet commenced
on the source or modification.
* * * * *
    (u) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The delegate agency shall send a copy of any public comment
notice required under paragraph (q) of this section to the
Administrator through the appropriate Regional Office.
    (3) In the case of a source or modification which proposes to
construct in a Class III area, emissions from which would cause or
contribute to air quality exceeding the maximum allowable increase
applicable if the area were designated a Class II area, and where no
standard under section 111 of the Act has been promulgated for such
source category, the Administrator must approve the determination of
best available control technology as set forth in the permit.
* * * * *
    (w) * * *
    (1) Any permit issued under this section or a prior version of this
section shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires under
paragraph (r)(2) of this section or is rescinded under this paragraph
(w).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-13905 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11717-11719]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0121; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-151-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2008-14-
17, for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. AD
2008-14-17 currently requires a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection, corrective actions if necessary, and modifications. Since
we issued AD 2008-14-17, it has been determined from a fatigue and
damage tolerance evaluation that the compliance time needs to be
revised. This proposed AD would require the same actions as those
required by AD 2008-14-17, but with a reduced compliance time. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct damage of the upper shell
structure at the skin and frame interface, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airframe.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 17, 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0121; 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 MCAI, the regulatory 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2014-0121;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-151-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 based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 27, 2008, we issued AD 2008-14-17, Amendment 39-15612 (73
FR 40958, July 17, 2008). AD 2008-14-17 requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-
300 series airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2008-14-17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR 40958,
July 17, 2008), it has been determined from a fatigue and damage
tolerance evaluation that the compliance time of the HFEC inspection
for cracking, and modification of the upper shell structure of the
fuselage needs to be revised.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0158, dated July 22, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    During fatigue tests (EF3) on an A340-600 aeroplane, multiple
damage was found in the upper side shell structure at skin and frame
(FR) 84 and 85 interface, from stringer 6 to 15 Left-Hand (LH) and
Right Hand (RH). This damage occurred between 58 341 and 72 891
simulated flight cycles (FC).
    Due to the higher Design Service Goal and different design (e.g.
skin thickness) for A330-200 and A340-300 aeroplanes, the damage
assessment concluded that these aeroplanes can potentially be
impacted.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airframe.
    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued [an] AD * * * to require
a one-time inspection and a modification to improve the upper shell
structure.

    EASA AD 2007-0269R1 [(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0269R1_superseded.pdf/AD_2007-0269R1_2)], which corresponds
to FAA AD 2008-14-17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR 40958) was issued to
clarify the fact that the [EASA] AD was not applicable to A340-300
aeroplanes on which both Airbus Mod 44205 and Mod 45012 have been
embodied in production.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, in the frame of a new fatigue
and damage tolerance evaluation, taking into account the aeroplane
utilization, the threshold and intervals were reassessed. This
reassessment concluded that, in that specific case, the threshold
for modifying the aeroplane must be reduced.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2007-0269R1, which is superseded, but
requires these actions within the new thresholds.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0121.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, Revision
03, dated December 22, 2011. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

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 our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and Modification           300 work-hours x $85            $72,730          $98,230         $687,610
 [retained actions from AD 2008-14-    per hour = $25,500.
 17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR
 40958, July 17, 2008)].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed AD adds no additional economic burden.

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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-14-
17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR 40958, July 17, 2008), and adding the
following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0121; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
151-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 17, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2008-14-17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR
40958, July 17, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes,
all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN), on which Airbus modification
44205 has been embodied in production, except those on which Airbus
modification 52974 or modification 53223 has been embodied in
production.
    (2) Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all MSN on
which Airbus modification 44205 has been embodied in production,
except those on which Airbus modification 52974 or modification
53223 or modification 45012 has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination from a fatigue and
damage tolerance evaluation that the compliance time of the high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking, and
modification of the upper shell structure of the fuselage needs to
be revised. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage of
the of the upper shell structure at the skin and frame

interface, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airframe.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection With Reduced Compliance Times and Revised
Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of
AD 2008-14-17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR 40958, July 17, 2008), with
reduced compliance times and revised service information. For Airbus
Model A330-200 series airplanes, as identified in paragraph (c) of
this AD, on which Modification 45012 has been embodied in
production: Within the applicable compliance times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, do the
HFEC inspection for cracking, and corrective actions as applicable;
and modify the upper shell structure of the fuselage; in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-53-3152, Revision 3, dated December 22, 2011. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) For airplanes pre-modification 48827 with short range
utilization: At the later of the times specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to 24,400 total flight cycles or 85,400 total flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD
without exceeding 25,400 total flight cycles.
    (2) For airplanes pre-modification 48827 with long range
utilization: At the later of the times specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to 18,900 total flight cycles or 122,900 total flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD
without exceeding 25,400 total flight cycles.
    (3) For airplanes post-modification 48827 with short range
utilization: At the later of the times specified in paragraph
(g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to 16,400 total flight cycles or 57,400 total flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD
without exceeding 17,100 total flight cycles or 94,700 total flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (4) For airplanes post-modification 48827 with long range
utilization: At the later of the times specified in paragraph
(g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Prior to 12,700 total flight cycles or 82,700 total flight
hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD
without exceeding 17,100 total flight cycles or 94,700 total flight
hours, whichever occurs first.

(h) Retained Modification With Revised Formatting

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of
AD 2008-14-17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR 40958, July 17, 2008). For
Airbus Model A330-200 and A340-300 series airplanes as identified in
paragraph (c) of this AD, on which Modification 45012 has not been
embodied in production: At the later of the compliance times
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, modify the
upper shell structure of the fuselage, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3157
or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-4163, both dated July 5, 2006, as
applicable.
    (1) For the airplanes identified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and
(h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For Model A330-200 series airplanes, prior to 6,600 total
flight cycles.
    (ii) For Model A340-300 series airplanes, prior to 14,000 total
flight cycles.
    (2) Within 90 days after August 21, 2008 (the effective date of
AD 2008-14-17, Amendment 39-15612 (73 FR 40958, July 17, 2008)).

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph
(i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, dated April
10, 2007.
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, Revision 1,
dated May 5, 2009.
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-53-3152, Revision 2,
dated July 27, 2011.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or by the DAH with a State of Design Authority's
design organization approval, as applicable). You are required to
ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-
0158, dated July 22, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0121.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04501 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 9)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2190-2192]
[DOCID:fr14ja08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0012; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-204-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER
Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes.
This proposed AD would require an inspection to determine the
manufacturer and manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger
service units and the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen boxes, as
applicable. This proposed AD would also require related investigative/
corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD results from a report
that several passenger masks with broken in-line flow indicators were
found following a mask deployment. We are proposing this AD to prevent
the in-line flow indicators of the passenger oxygen masks from
fracturing and separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the masks
and consequently result in exposure of the passengers and cabin

attendants to hypoxia following a depressurization event.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 28,
2008.

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 AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this 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: Susan Letcher, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2008-0012;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-204-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://www.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

    We have received a report indicating that several passenger masks
with broken in-line flow indicators were found following a mask
deployment on a Boeing Model 777-200 series airplane. Operators
subsequently found several more broken in-line flow indicators after
examining the oxygen mask assemblies on other Model 777 series
airplanes and on Model 747-400 series airplanes. Investigation revealed
that certain flow indicators are weaker and can fracture because of
internal residual stresses caused by the flow indicator joint design
and manufacturing processes. Fractures cause the in-line flow indicator
to separate and consequently prevent oxygen flow to the mask during an
emergency. This condition, if not corrected, could result in exposure
of the passengers and cabin attendants to hypoxia following a
depressurization event.
    The oxygen masks on certain Model 777 airplanes and Model 747-400
series airplanes have the same flow indicators as those installed on
certain Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes. Therefore,
the Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER series airplanes may be subject to
the identified unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-
0054, dated July 6, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for
a general visual inspection to determine the manufacturer and
manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units and
the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen boxes, as applicable. The
service bulletin also describes procedures for doing related
investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative action
is a general visual inspection of the flow indicator to determine the
color of the flow direction mark and the word ``flow'' on the flow
indicator, if the identification (ID) label shows that the manufacturer
is B/E Aerospace and the manufacture date is between January 1, 2002,
and March 1, 2006. The corrective action is the installation of a new
oxygen mask having an improved flow indicator, if the existing oxygen
mask is found to be one of the discrepant masks.
    Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054 refers to B/E
Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-01, dated February 6, 2006; and
Revision 1, dated May 1, 2006; as additional sources of service
information for getting a new oxygen mask having an improved flow
indicator. B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-01 describes
procedures for modifying the oxygen mask assembly by replacing the flow
indicator, part number (P/N) 118023-02, with an improved flow
indicator, P/N 118023-12. B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-01
also specifies that, as an alternative to modifying the oxygen mask,
operators may replace the oxygen mask with a new oxygen mask having the
improved flow indicator.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

Clarification Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    Although Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054
specifies to install a new oxygen mask having an improved flow
indicator, the intent of the service bulletin is to replace it with
either a new or modified oxygen mask having an improved flow indicator.
Therefore, this proposed AD would require replacing the oxygen mask
assembly with a new or modified oxygen mask assembly having an improved
flow indicator.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 688 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 242 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 53 work hours per
airplane, with an average of 360 oxygen masks per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $1,026,080, or
$4,240 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0012; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
204-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February
28, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -400ER
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-35-0054, dated July 6,
2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that several passenger masks
with broken in-line flow indicators were found following a mask
deployment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the in-line flow
indicators of the passenger oxygen masks from fracturing and
separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the masks and
consequently result in exposure of the passengers and cabin
attendants to hypoxia following a depressurization event.

Compliance

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

Inspection and Related Investigative/Corrective Actions if Necessary

    (f) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
general visual inspection to determine the manufacturer and
manufacture date of the oxygen masks in the passenger service units
and the flight attendant and lavatory oxygen boxes, as applicable,
and do the applicable related investigative and corrective actions,
by accomplishing all of the applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767-35-0054, dated July 6, 2006; except where the service
bulletin specifies installing a new oxygen mask, replace the oxygen
mask with a new or modified oxygen mask having an improved flow
indicator. The related investigative and corrective actions must be
done before further flight.

    Note 1: The service bulletin refers to B/E Aerospace Service
Bulletin 174080-35-01, dated February 6, 2006; and Revision 1, dated
May 1, 2006; as additional sources of service information for
modifying the oxygen mask assembly by replacing the flow indicator
with an improved flow indicator.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 26, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-378 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5689-5690]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0889; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-35-AD;
Amendment 39-16189; AD 2010-03-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arriel 2B and 2B1 Turboshaft
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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:

    Several events of uncoupling of the low-pressure (LP) fuel pump
impeller and the high-pressure (HP) fuel pump shaft have been
reported on Arriel 2 engines which do not incorporate Modification
TU 147. In most cases the ``low fuel pressure switch'' enlightened,
the pilot activated the aircraft booster pump in accordance with the
Flight Manual Instructions and landed safely with no other incident.
One case, on a single-engine helicopter, led to a sudden engine
power loss. The uncoupling of the LP fuel pump impeller and the HP
fuel pump shaft may lead to a limitation of engine power or, at
worst, an uncommanded in-flight shutdown. On a single-engine
helicopter, the result may be an emergency autorotation landing.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent a forced autorotation landing or
an accident.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 11, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of March 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.
    Contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone (33) 05 59 74 40
00, fax (33) 05 59 74 45 15, for the service information identified in
this AD.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2009 (74
FR 57277). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    Several events of uncoupling of the LP fuel pump impeller and
the HP fuel pump shaft have been reported on Arriel 2 engines which
do not incorporate Modification TU 147. In most cases the ``low fuel
pressure switch'' enlightened, the pilot activated the aircraft
booster pump in accordance with the Flight Manual Instructions and
landed safely with no other incident. One case, on a single-engine
helicopter, led to a sudden engine power loss. The uncoupling of the
LP fuel pump impeller and the HP fuel pump shaft may lead to a
limitation of engine power or, at worst, an uncommanded in-flight
shutdown. On a single-engine helicopter, the result may be an
emergency autorotation landing.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received.
    One commenter, a private citizen, states that the labor rate of $80
per work-hour referenced in the proposed AD is underestimated. He
states that it should be at least $95 per work-hour.
    We partially agree. The work-hour labor rate estimate is
established by the FAA's Regulatory Analysis Division which recently
published a new rate; $85 per work-hour. We changed the AD to reflect
this increase.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the change described previously.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI requires checking the transmissible torque between the LP
pump impeller and the HP pump shaft within 550 engine flight hours from
the effective date of the AD, but no later than June 30, 2010.
    This AD requires checking the transmissible torque between the LP
pump impeller and the HP pump shaft within 550 engine flight hours from
the effective date of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 414 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 2.5 work-hours per engine to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Replacement HP/LP pump metering units (HMUs) will cost about $12,000
per engine. Based on these figures, if all of the HMUs were to fail the
check, we estimate the cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be
$5,055,975.

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

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-03-06 Turbomeca: Amendment 39-16189. Docket No. FAA-2009-0889;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-35-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
11, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft
engines that have not incorporated Modification TU 147. These
engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter AS 350 B3
and EC 130 B4 helicopters.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. We are issuing this AD to prevent a forced autorotation
landing or an accident.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 550 engine flight hours from the effective date of
this AD, check the transmissible torque between the low-pressure
(LP) pump impeller and the high-pressure (HP) pump shaft of the HP/
LP pump metering unit (HMU). Use paragraph 2 of the Instructions to
be Incorporated of Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 73
2830, Version B, dated July 10, 2009, to do the check.
    (2) If the check is compliant, apply the nominal tightening
torque to the screw of the LP pump impeller.
    (3) If the check is not compliant, replace the HP/LP pump HMU
with a unit that has not incorporated Modification TU 147 but has
passed the check, or with a unit that has incorporated Modification
TU 147.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as
follows:
    (1) The MCAI requires the checking of the transmissible torque
between the LP pump impeller and the HP pump shaft within 550 engine
flight hours from the effective date of the AD, but no later than
June 30, 2010.
    (2) This AD requires the checking of the transmissible torque
between the LP pump impeller and the HP pump shaft within 550 engine
flight hours from the effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0184, dated August 14, 2009, for related information.
    (i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292
73 2830, Version B, dated July 10, 2009, to do the transmissible
torque check required by this AD.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone (33) 05 59 74 40 00, fax
(33) 05 59 74 45 15.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 21, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-1735 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P