Fauquet C.M. Recombination, pseudorecombination and synergism of
geminiviruses are determinant keys to the epidemic of severe cassava
mosaic disease in Uganda. Journal of General Virology 2001; 82:655-65.
    35. Moonan F., Molina J., Mirkov T.E. Sugarcane yellow leaf virus:
an emerging virus that has evolved by recombination between luteoviral
and poleroviral ancestors. Virology 2000; 269:156-71.
    36. Worobey M., Holmes E.C. Evolutionary aspects of recombination
in RNA viruses. Journal of General Virology 1999; 80:2535-43.
    37. Garc[iacute]a-Arenal F., Fraile A., Malpica J.M. Variability
and genetic structure of plant virus populations. Annual Review of
Phytopathology 2001; 39:157-86.
    38. Rodrigues-Alvarado G., Kurath G., Dodds J.A. Heterogeneity in
pepper isolates of cucumber mosaic virus. Plant Disease 1995; 79:450-5.
    39. Fraile A., Malpica J.M., Aranda M.A., Rodriguez-Cerezo E.,
Garca-Arenal F. Genetic diversity in tobacco mild green mosaic
tobamovirus infecting the wild plant Nicotiana glauca. Virology 1996;
223:148-55.
    40. Brunt, A.A., Crabtree, K., Dallwitz, M.J., Gibb, A.J., Watson,
L., and Zurcher, E. Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from
the VIDE Database Version: 20\th\ August 1996. http://image.fs.uidaho.edu/vide/
.

    41. Kurganov B.I., Rafikova E.R., Dobrov E.N. Kinetics of thermal
aggregation of tobacco mosaic virus coat protein. Biochemistry (Moscow)
2002; 67:525-33.
    42. Liu H., Boulton M.I., Oparka K.J., Davies J.W. Interaction of
the movement and coat proteins of Maize streak virus: implications for
the transport of viral DNA. Journal of General Virology 2001; 82:35-44.
    43. Sacher R., Ahlquist P. Effects of deletions in the N-terminal
basic arm of brome mosaic virus coat protein on RNA packaging and
systemic infection. Journal of Virology 1989; 63:4545-52.
    44. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. Report of the June 6-7, 2000
Meeting on Mammalian Toxicity Assessment Guidelines for Protein Plant
Pesticides. 2000.
    45. Dinant S., Blaise F., Kusiak C., Astier-Manifacier S., Albouy
J. Heterologous resistance to potato virus Y in transgenic tobacco
plants expressing the coat protein gene of lettuce mosaic potyvirus.
Phytopathology 1993; 83:819-24.
    46. Breiteneder H., Pettenburger K., Bito A., Valenta R., Kraft D.,
Rumpold H. et al. The gene coding for the major birch pollen allergen
Betv1, is highly homologous to a pea disease resistance response gene.
The EMBO Journal 1989; 8:1935-8.
    47. Breiteneder H., Ebner C. Molecular and biochemical
classification of plant-derived food

allergens. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2000; 106:27-
36.
    48. Breiteneder H., Radauer C. A classification of plant food
allergens. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2004;
113:821-30.
    49. Ebner C., Hoffmann-Sommergruber K., Breiteneder H. Plant food
allergens homologous to pathogenesis-related proteins. Allergy 2001;
56:43-4.
    50. Davis M., Ying Z. Development of papaya breeding lines with
transgenic resistance to Papaya ringspot virus. Plant Disease 2004;
88:352-8.
    51. Lindbo J.A., Silva-Rosales L., Proebsting W.B., Dougherty W.G.
Induction of a highly specific antiviral state in transgenic plants:
Implications for regulation of gene expression and virus resistance.
The Plant Cell 1993; 5:1749-59.
    52. B[eacute]clin C., Berthom[eacute] R., Palauqui J.C., Tepfer M.,
Vaucheret H. Infection of tobacco or Arabidopsis plants by CMV
counteracts systemic post-transcriptional silencing of nonviral
(trans)genes. Virology 1998; 252:313-7.
    53. Pang S-Z, Jan F.J., Carney K., Stout J., Tricoli D.M., Quemada
H. et al. Post-transcriptional transgene silencing and consequent
tospovirus resistance in transgenic lettuce are affected by transgene
dosage and plant development. Plant Journal 1996; 9:899-909.
    54. Szittya G., Silhavy D., Moln[aacute]r A., Havelda Z., Lovas A,
Lakatos L. et al. Low temperature inhibits RNA silencing-mediated
defence by the control of siRNA generation. The EMBO Journal 2003;
22:633-40.
    55. Savenkov E.I., Valkonen J.P.T. Coat protein gene-mediated
resistance to Potato virus A in transgenic plants is suppressed
following infection with another potyvirus. Journal of General Virology
2001; 82:2275-8.
    56. Li W.X., Ding S.W. Viral suppressors of RNA silencing. Current
Opinion in Biotechnology 2001; 12:150-4.
    57. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. Minutes of the July 17-18,
2001 Meeting on A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the
Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Assessment of Additional
Scientific Information Concerning StarLink\TM\ Corn. 2001.
    58. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. Minutes of the November 28,
2000 Meeting on A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the
Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Assessment of Scientific
Information Concerning StarLink\TM\ Corn. 2000.
    59. Pariza M., Johnson E. Evaluating the safety of microbial enzyme
preparations used in food processing: update for a new century.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2001; 33:173-86.
    60. Berg J., Tymoczko J., Stryer L., Clarke N. Biochemistry, 5\th\
ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company, 2002.
    61. Environmental Protection Agency. Issue Paper on Dermal and
Inhalation Exposure to Plant Substances. 2000.
    62. Guy R.H., Hadgraft J. Principles of skin permeability relevant
to chemical exposure. In: Hobson DW. Dermal and Ocular Toxicology:
Fundamentals and Methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1991:221-46.
    63. Huguenot C., van den Dobbelsteen G., de Haan P., Wagemakers C.,
Drost G., Osterhaus A. et al. Detection of tomato spotted wilt virus
using monoclonal antibodies and riboprobes. Archives of Virology 1990;
110:47-62.
    64. Rocha-Pena M., Lee R., Niblett C. Development of a dot-
immunobinding assay for detection of citrus tristeza virus. Journal of
Virological Methods 1991; 34:297-309.
    65. Sukhacheva E., Novikov V., Plaksin D., Pavlova I., Ambrosova S.
Highly sensitive immunoassays for detection of barley stripe mosaic
virus and beet necrotic yellow vein virus. Journal of Virological
Methods 1996; 56:199-207.
    66. Hull R., Covey S.N., Dale P. Genetically modified plants and
the 35S promoter: assessing the risks and enhancing the debate.
Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2000; 12:1-5.

B. Additional Information

    EPA has established an official record for this rulemaking. The
official record includes all information considered by EPA in
developing this proposed rule including documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public comments received during an
applicable comment period, and any other information related to this
action, including any information claimed as CBI and any information
received in any of the related dockets mentioned in this unit. This
official record includes all information physically located in the
dockets described in the following paragraphs, as well as any documents
that are referenced in the documents in the dockets.
    1. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300370
for the document entitled ``Proposed Policy: Plant-Pesticides Subject
to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' (59 FR 60496, November 23, 1994)
(FRL-4755-2).
    2. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300369
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides Subject to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; Proposed Rule'' (59 FR
60519, November 23, 1994) (FRL-4755-3).
    3. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300368
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides; Proposed Exemption From
the Requirement of a Tolerance Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act'' (59 FR 60535, November 23, 1994) (FRL-4758-8).
    4. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300371
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides; Proposed Exemption From
the Requirement of a Tolerance Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act for Nucleic Acids Produced in Plants'' (59 FR 60542,
November 23, 1994) (FRL-4755-5).
    5. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300367
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides; Proposed Exemption From
the Requirement of a Tolerance Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act for Viral Coat Proteins Produced in Plants'' (59 FR 60545,
November 23, 1994) (FRL-4755-4).
    6. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300370A
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticide Subject to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act; Reopening of Comment Period'' (61 FR 37891, July 22,
1996) (FRL-5387-4).
    7. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300368A
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides; Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking'' (62 FR 27132, May 16, 1997) (FRL-5717-2).
    8. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300371A
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides; Nucleic Acids;
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' (62 FR 27142 May 16, 1997)
(FRL-5716-7).
    9. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300367A
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides; Viral Coat Proteins;
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' (62 FR 27149, May 16,
1997) (FRL-5716-6).
    10. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300369A
for the document entitled ``Plant-Pesticides, Supplemental Notice of
Availability of Information'' (64 FR 19958, April 23, 1999) (FRL-6077-
6).
    11. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300368B
for the document entitled ``Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for Residues Derived
Through Conventional Breeding From Sexually Compatible Plants of Plant-
Incorporated Protectants (Formerly Plant-Pesticides)'' (66 FR 37830,
July 19, 2001) (FRL-6057-6).
    12. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300371B
for the document entitled ``Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for Residues
of Nucleic Acids that are Part of Plant-Incorporated Protectants
(Formerly Plant-Pesticides)'' (66 FR 37817, July 19, 2001) (FRL-6057-
5).
    13. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300369B
for the document entitled ``Regulations Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for Plant-Incorporated Protectants
(Formerly Plant-Pesticides)'' (66 FR 37772, July 19, 2001) (FRL-6057-
7).
    14. The docket identified by the docket control number OPP-300370B
for the document entitled ``Plant-Incorporated Protectants (Formerly
Plant-Pesticides), Supplemental Proposal'' (66 FR 37855, July 19, 2001)
(FRL-6760-4).
    15. The docket identified by the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-
0642 for the companion document entitled ``Exemption under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for Certain Plant-
Incorporated Protectants Derived from Plant Viral Coat Protein Gene(s)
(PVCP-PIPs)'' (FRL-8100-7) published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
    16. The docket identified by the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-
0643 for this document (FRL-8100-5).
    Also included in the complete official public record are:
     Public comments submitted in response to the proposals and
supplemental documents cited in the above paragraphs.
     Reports of all meetings of the Biotechnology Science
Advisory Committee and the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel pertaining
to the development of this final rule.
     Support documents and reports.
     Records of all communications between EPA personnel and
persons outside EPA pertaining to the proposed rule. (This does not
include any inter- and intra-agency memoranda, unless specifically
noted in the indices of the dockets).
     Published literature that is cited in this document.

XIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This proposed rule would establish an exemption from therequirement
of a tolerance under section 408 of FFDCA. The Officeof Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actionsfrom review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted
from review under Executive Order 12866, this proposal is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This proposed rule does not contain any new information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether
establishing tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising tolerance
levels or expanding exemptions might adversely impact small entities
and concluded, as a general matter, that there is no adverse economic
impact associated with tolerance actions. The factual basis for the
Agency's generic certification for tolerance actions published on May
4, 1981 (46 FR 24950). Since this proposed rule will not have an
adverse economic impact, EPA hereby certifies under section 605(b) of
the RFA that this action will not have a significant adverse economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Tolerance actions,
such as this proposed exemption, directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes.
Tolerance actions do not alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the
national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus,
the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
(65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition,
this rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    As with all aspects of its proposal, EPA invites your comments on
these determinations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 9, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 174 be amended as
follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 174 would continue to read as
follows:

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136-136y and 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

    2. By adding Sec.  174.477 to read as follows:

Sec.  174.477  Plant virus coat protein portion of a PVCP-PIP (PVC-
protein); exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

     (a) Residues of a PVC-protein from a PVCP-PIP are exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance if the encoded PVC-protein is virtually
unmodified when compared to an entire unmodified coat protein from a
virus that naturally infects plants that humans consume in toto or in
part.
     (b) When the genetic material that encodes the pesticidal
substance or leads to the production of the pesticidal substance has
been modified (e.g., through internal deletions, addition of
nucleotides from other virus coat protein genes, or substitutions
leading to amino acid changes), residues of the PVC-protein may be
exempt if the Agency determines, after review, that the encoded PVC-
protein has been

minimally modified when compared to an entire unmodified coat protein
from a virus that naturally infects plants that humans consume in toto
or in part.
     (c) Agency determinations made under paragraph (b) of this section
may be made in response to a petition submitted in accordance with the
provisions of 40 CFR part 177 or on the Agency's own initiative.

[FR Doc. E7-7296 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38801-38806]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0431; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-041-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-14-
07, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-
100, 727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes. AD 2005-14-07
currently requires repetitive inspections of the carriage attach
fittings on the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing for
cracking and other discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary.
Since we issued AD 2005-14-07, we received a report of broken inboard
and outboard carriage attach fittings of the outboard foreflaps found
during an inspection. This proposed AD would reduce certain repetitive
inspection intervals for the inboard and outboard carriage attach
fittings for the outboard foreflaps, require previously optional
terminating actions which install improved outboard foreflap carriage
attach fittings, and add new initial and repetitive inspections of
those fittings and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the attach fittings
of the foreflap carriage of the wings, which could result in partial or
complete loss of the foreflap and consequent loss of controllability of
the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above 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, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0431; 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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-
4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0431;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-041-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

    On June 29, 2005, we issued AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70
FR 39647, July 11, 2005), for certain Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100,
727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes. AD 2005-14-07
requires repetitive inspections of the carriage attach fittings on the
inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing for cracking and other
discrepancies, and corrective actions if necessary. For certain
airplanes, AD 2005-14-07 also concurrently requires various other
actions related to the subject area. AD 2005-14-07 also provides for an
optional terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements
and for an optional replacement that defers the repetitive inspections.
AD 2005-14-07 resulted from reports of damaged or failed outboard
foreflaps with a cracked or failed carriage attach fitting of the
foreflap sequencing carriage. We issued AD 2005-14-07 to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the attach fittings of the foreflap
carriage of the wings, which could result in partial or complete loss
of the foreflap and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11,
2005) Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647,
July 11, 2005), we received a report of broken inboard and outboard
carriage attach fittings of the outboard foreflaps found during an
inspection required by AD 2005-14-07. The airplane had 47,125 flight
cycles. Boeing stated that the metallurgical analysis determined that
the cause of the broken fittings is a suspected static overload
condition.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4,
dated September 26, 2012. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0431.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2005-14-07,
Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005). This proposed AD would
reduce certain repetitive inspection intervals for the inboard and
outboard carriage attach fittings of the outboard foreflaps, require
previously optional terminating actions which install improved outboard
foreflap carriage attach fittings, and add new initial and repetitive
inspections of those fittings and corrective action if necessary. This
proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously. This proposed AD would
also add a reference to Figure 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002, in paragraph (i)(2) of this
proposed AD that restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2005-
14-07, to provide for further information on corrective actions.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Change to AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11,
2005)

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2005-14-07,
Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005). Since AD 2005-14-07
was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers
have been redesignated in this proposed AD, as listed in the following
table:

                     Revised Paragraph Designations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement in AD 2005-14-07,
  Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647,    Corresponding  requirement in this
           July 11, 2005)                        proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             paragraph (f)                        paragraph (g)
             paragraph (g)                        paragraph (h)
             paragraph (h)                     paragraph (i)(1)
             paragraph (i)                     paragraph (i)(2)
             paragraph (j)                     paragraph (j)(1)
             paragraph (k)                     paragraph (j)(2)
             paragraph (l)                     paragraph (j)(3)
             paragraph (m)                     paragraph (j)(4)
             paragraph (n)                        paragraph (k)
             paragraph (o)                        paragraph (l)
             paragraph (p)                     paragraph (r)(1)
             paragraph (q)                     paragraph (r)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                            Retained Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Retained action         Work hours    Parts cost              Cost               Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections of the carriage             4  None.........  $340 per airplane, per      $33,320, per inspection
 attach fittings for all                                   inspection cycle.           cycle.
 airplanes [retained actions
 from AD 2005-14-07,
 Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR
 39647, July 11, 2005)].
Installation of guide blocks           32  $0...........  $2,720 per airplane.......  Up to $266,560.
 for certain airplanes
 [retained actions from AD
 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-
 14184 (70 FR 39647, July
 11, 2005)].
Inspection of foreflap                  4  None.........  $340 per airplane.........  Up to $33,320.
 airload roller travel for
 certain airplanes [retained
 actions from AD 2005-14-07,
 Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR
 39647, July 11, 2005)].
Modification of the inboard             4  $0...........  $340 per airplane.........  Up to $33,320.
 jackscrews on the outboard
 flap for certain airplanes
 [retained actions from AD
 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-
 14184 (70 FR 39647, July
 11, 2005)].
Inspection of the entire               12  None.........  $1,020 per airplane.......  Up to $99,960.
 track and of the track rib
 faces for certain airplanes
 [retained actions from AD
 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-
 14184 (70 FR 39647, July
 11, 2005)].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                        Estimated Costs for New Proposed Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                       Labor cost             Parts cost                Cost per product                Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and functional check of    3 work-hours x $85 per  None................  $255, per inspection cycle.......  $24,990, per inspection cycle.
 outboard foreflap installation for    hour = $255 per
 all airplanes [new proposed action].  inspection cycle.
Replacement of carriage attach        2 work-hours x $85 per  $18,000.............  $18,170 per airplane.............  Up to $1,780,660.
 fitting on outboard foreflap for      hour = $170.
 certain airplanes [new proposed
 action].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                      Labor cost               Parts cost               Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of sequence carriage    2 work-hours x $85     Up to $175................  Up to $345.
 slider or sidewall rubstrips.       per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 proposed 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 22, 2005), and adding
the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0431; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-041-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 25,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR
39647, July 11, 2005).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Boeing Model 727, 727C, 727-100, 727-100C,
727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as listed in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135,
Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of broken carriage attach
fittings of the inboard and outboard foreflaps found during an
inspection and an additional report of broken inboard and outboard
carriage attach fittings of the outboard foreflaps found during an
inspection. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the attach fittings of the foreflap carriage of the
wings, which could result in partial or complete loss of the
foreflap and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with
revised service information and new compliance time. Except as
provided by paragraph (l) of this AD: Within 1,000 flight cycles
after August 15, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-14-07) or
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight
cycles, except as required by paragraph (m) of this AD (for outboard
foreflaps), inspect as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002;
or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. As of the effective date of
this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135,
Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. Accomplishing the actions of
paragraph (m) or (o) of this AD terminates the inspections required
by this paragraph for outboard foreflaps only.
    (1) A detailed inspection to detect cracks and surface
deviations on all edges, surfaces, and lug attachment fastener holes
on the two carriage attach fittings on the inboard and outboard
foreflaps of each wing.
    (2) A high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect
cracks at the lug attachment fastener holes on the two carriage
attach fittings on the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing.

(h) Retained Requirement for Crack or Surface Deviation Findings:
Replacement

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with
revised service information. If any crack is detected or if any
surface deviation beyond the limits specified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or
Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012; is detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) or (m) of this AD, before
further flight, replace the carriage attach fitting with a new,
improved fitting or a new fitting having the same part number as the
existing fitting, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June
27, 2002; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
727-57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.

(i) Retained Measurement and Associated Corrective Action(s)

    (1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of
AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with
revised service information. Within 3,500 flight cycles after August
15, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-14-07), inspect for
interference between the carriage attach fitting and the carriage
lug fitting, and do other related investigative actions by
accomplishing all the actions specified in paragraph 3.C. and Figure
2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or paragraph
3.B.3 and Figure 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26,
2012. Do the actions in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; or Revision
4, dated September 26, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD,
use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4,
dated September 26, 2012.
    (2) Paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD restate the
requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184
(70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with revised service information.
    (i) If any discrepancy is found during any action required by
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further flight, accomplish
applicable corrective action(s) (e.g., adding a shim or reworking
the carriage attachment lug assembly) in accordance with paragraph
3.C. and Figure 2 or 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002;
or paragraph 3.B.3. and Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4, dated
September 26, 2012; except as required by paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of
this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.
    (ii) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision
3, dated June 27, 2002; or Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012;
specify to contact the manufacturer if rework of the improved
fitting is required: Before further flight, rework in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), or Los Angeles ACO, FAA, or in
accordance with data meeting the type certification basis of the
airplane approved by an Authorized Representative (AR) for the
Boeing Delegation Option Authorization (DOA) Organization who has
been authorized by the FAA to make such findings, or using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(s) of this AD. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically reference this AD. As of the effective date of this AD,
any new repair approval must be done using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this
AD.

(j) Retained Concurrent Requirements

    (1) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of
AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with
new paragraph reference. For Model 727 airplanes listed in Boeing
727 Service Bulletin 57-59, Revision 1, dated September 27, 1965:
Before or at the same time with the requirements of paragraph (i) or
(o) of this AD, install guide blocks and bushings in the midflap
ribs in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
727 Service Bulletin 57-59, Revision 1, dated September 27, 1965.
    (2) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of
AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with
new paragraph reference. For Model 727 airplanes listed in Boeing
Service Bulletin 727-27-133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972: Before
or at the same time with the requirements of paragraph (i) or (o) of
this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and
(j)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) For Groups I and II airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-27-133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972: Do a one-time
inspection of the airload support roller for travel on the foreflap
track in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-27-133, Revision 1, dated May 9,
1972.
    (A) If the airload support roller travels within the limits
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-27-133, Revision 1, dated
May 9, 1972, modify the control drum of the inboard flap and inboard
jackscrews of the outboard flap, in accordance with Part II of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-27-133,
Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972.
    (B) If the airload support roller travels beyond the limits
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-27-133, Revision 1, dated
May 9, 1972, repair in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, or Los Angeles ACO, FAA; or in accordance with
data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved
by an AR for the Boeing DOA Organization who has been authorized by
the FAA to make such

findings, or using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically reference this
AD. As of the effective date of this AD, any new repair approval
must be done using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.
    (ii) For Group III airplanes identified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-27-133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972: Modify the
inboard jackscrews of the outboard flap (i.e., replacing the down
stop at the inboard jackscrews of the outboard flap) in accordance
with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 727-27-133, Revision 1, dated May 9, 1972.
    (3) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of
AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with
new paragraph reference. For Model 727 airplanes listed in Boeing
727 Service Bulletin 57-72, dated September 21, 1966: Before or at
the same time with the requirements of paragraph (i) or (o) of this
AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(3)(i) through
(j)(3)(iv) of this AD.
    (i) Chamfer the upper and lower flanges at the aft end of the
foreflap tracks in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57-72, dated September 21, 1966.
    (ii) Do a standard magnetic particle inspection of the entire
foreflap tracks for cracks in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57-72, dated September
21, 1966. If any crack is detected, before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, or
Los Angeles ACO, FAA; or in accordance with data meeting the type
certification basis of the airplane approved by an AR for the Boeing
DOA Organization who has been authorized by the FAA to make such
findings, or using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically reference this
AD. As of the effective date of this AD, any new repair approval
must be done using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.
    (iii) Do a general visual inspection of the track rib faces at
the front and rear spars to verify if the opening in the spars is
flush with or clear of the plane of the rib faces, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin
57-72, dated September 21, 1966. If the opening is not flush or
clear with the plane, before further flight, rework the spar opening
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727
Service Bulletin 57-72, dated September 21, 1966.
    (iv) Do a general visual inspection of the head or shank of
bolts by securing the foreflap links to the foreflap tracks to
verify if they protrude beyond the edge of the track flange in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 727
Service Bulletin 57-72, dated September 21, 1966. If the head or
shank of the bolts protrude beyond the edge of the track flange,
before further flight, rework in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing 727 Service Bulletin 57-72, dated September
21, 1966.
    (v) For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is
defined as: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or
irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching
distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to
enhance visual access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection
area. This level of inspection is made under normally available
lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight,
or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''
    (4) This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of
AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with
a new paragraph identifier. For airplanes other than those
identified in the service information specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
through (j)(3) of this AD: Before or at the same time with the
requirements of paragraph (i) or (o) of this AD, do an inspection to
verify if any of the parts listed in the ``Spares Affected''
paragraph of each service information referenced in paragraphs
(j)(1) through (j)(3) of this AD are installed on the airplane. If
any part identified in that paragraph is found installed, before
further flight, do the applicable corrective and investigative
action(s) specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(3) of this AD.

(k) Retained Optional Terminating Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD
2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005), with no
changes. Replacement of the two carriage attach fittings on the
inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing with new, improved
fittings, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June
27, 2002; and accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) through (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable, before or
concurrently with the replacement; constitutes terminating action
for paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD and paragraph (l) of this
AD for those replaced fittings on the outboard and inboard
foreflaps.

(l) Retained Optional Deferral of Inspection

    This paragraph restates the optional deferral of paragraph (o)
of AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005),
with no changes. Replacement of the two carriage attach fittings on
the inboard and outboard foreflaps of each wing with new fittings
having the same part number as the existing fittings, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 3, dated June 27, 2002; and
accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through
(j)(4) of this AD, as applicable, before or concurrently with the
replacement; defers the next inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD for 10,000 flight cycles after the replacement. Thereafter,
repeat the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD at
intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles, except as required by
paragraph (m) of this AD.

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Detailed and HFEC Inspections of
Outboard Foreflaps, With Reduced Repetitive Intervals

    Within 1,000 flight cycles after the most recent accomplishment
of the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do a
detailed inspection to detect cracks and surface deviations on all
edges, surfaces, and lug attachment fastener holes, and a HFEC
inspection to detect cracks at the lug attachment fastener holes, on
the two carriage attach fittings on the outboard foreflaps of each
wing, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26,
2012, and do all applicable corrective actions required by paragraph
(h) of this AD. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 200 flight cycles until the requirements of paragraph (o)
of this AD is accomplished. Accomplishing the requirements of this
paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD
for the outboard foreflaps only.

(n) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection and Check of Outboard
Foreflap Installation and Corrective Action

    Within 200 flight cycles or 6 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, do a general visual inspection and
function check for damage and incorrect operation of the outboard
foreflap installations, and all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.
Do the applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection and check at intervals not to
exceed 500 flight cycles.

(o) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement of Previously Un-Replaced
(or ``Original Configuration'') Carriage Attach Fittings on the
Outboard Foreflap

    For airplanes on which any production carriage attach fitting is
still installed on the outboard foreflap: Within 3,000 flight cycles
or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, replace all production carriage attach fittings with new,
improved carriage attach fittings, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-
57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012, and do all applicable
concurrent actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD.
Accomplishing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (m) of this AD for outboard
foreflaps only.

(p) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection, Corrective Action and
Replacement of Fittings Replaced in Accordance With Paragraph (l) of
This AD

    For airplanes on which a new carriage attach fitting with the
original part number on the outboard foreflap was installed in
accordance with paragraph (l) of this AD: Do the actions specified
in paragraphs (p)(1) and (p)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, do a detailed inspection for cracks and surface deviation on all
edges surfaces, and lug attachment fastener holes, and a HFEC
inspection for cracks at the lug attachment fastener holes, on the
carriage attach fittings for the outboard foreflaps, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision
4, dated September 26, 2012. Repeat the inspection at intervals not
to exceed 200 flight cycles. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight.
    (2) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 3 years after the effective
date of this AD, replace the fitting with a new, improved fitting in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision 4, dated September 26, 2012.
Accomplishing the requirements of this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (g), (m), and (p)(1) of this AD for that
outboard foreflap only.

(q) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection and Corrective Actions on
Fittings Replaced According to Paragraph (k), (o), or (p) of This AD on
Outboard Foreflaps

    For airplanes on which a new, improved carriage attach fitting
on the outboard foreflap was replaced in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (k), (o), or (p) of this AD: Within 20,000
flight cycles after installing that fitting, do a detailed
inspection for cracks and surface deviation on all edges surfaces,
and lug attachment fastener holes, and a HFEC inspection for cracks
at the lug attachment fastener holes, on the carriage attach
fittings for the outboard foreflaps, and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-57A0135, Revision
4, dated September 26, 2012. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 1,400 flight cycles. Accomplishing the requirements of
this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this
AD for outboard foreflaps only.

(r) Retained Credit for Previously Accomplished Service Bulletins

    (1) This paragraph restates the credit provided by paragraph (p)
of AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005),
with no changes. Installations accomplished before August 15, 2005
(the effective date of AD 2005-14-07), in accordance with Boeing 727
Service Bulletin 57-59, dated September 2, 1965, are acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (2) This paragraph restates the credit provided by paragraph (q)
of AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR 39647, July 11, 2005),
with no changes. Inspections and modifications accomplished before
August 15, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-14-07), in accordance
with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-27-133, dated October 7, 1971, are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (j)(2)
of this AD.

(s) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (u) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2005-14-07, Amendment 39-14184 (70 FR
39647, July 11, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of this AD.

(t) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chandraduth
Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Aircraft 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 June 27, 2014.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Aircraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-15986 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33530-33531]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12367]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0054; FRL-9947-00-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Pulp and Paper
Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart S) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1657.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0387) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2015. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR
30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0054, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this
ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in
person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Respondents are owners or operators of facilities that
produce pulp, paper, or paperboard by employing kraft, soda, sulfite,
semi-chemical, or mechanical pulping processes using wood; or any
process using secondary or non-wood fiber and that emits 10 tons per
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tons per year
or more of any combination of HAPs. Affected sources are all the
hazardous air pollutant emission points or the HAP emission points in
the pulping and bleaching system for mechanical pulping processes using
wood and any process using secondary or non-wood fiber.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of pulp and
paper mills that are major sources of HAP emissions.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart S).
    Estimated number of respondents: 114 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 44,438 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $5,191,626 (per year), includes $841,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This decrease is not due to any program changes. The
currently approved burden estimates contain requirements from the
previous regulation as well as duplicate burden activities. In
preparing this ICR renewal, EPA has removed duplicate items and updated
the ICR so that it only reflects current requirements. This results in
an apparent decrease in burden.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-12367 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36179-36180]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 14501-000]

Carlsbad Municipal Water District; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 14501-000.
    c. Date filed: February 21, 2013, and supplemented on May 13, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
    e. Name of Project: Pressure Control Hydroelectric Facility at
Maerkle Reservoir Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Pressure Control Hydroelectric Facility
at Maerkle Reservoir Project would be located on a water supply
pipeline entering the Maerkle Reservoir in San Diego County,
California. The land on which all the project structures are located is
owned by the applicant.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. William Plummer, Engineering Manager,
Carlsbad Municipal Water District, 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
92008; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Environmental Analysis: This application is ready for
environmental analysis at this time, and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions.
    k. Deadline for filing responsive documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as well as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
filed in response to comments submitted by any resource agency, Indian
tribe, or person, must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    l. Description of the project: The proposed Pressure Control
Hydroelectric Facility at Maerkle Reservoir Project would consist of:
(1) A proposed 30-inch-diameter by 16-inch-diameter reducer; (2) a
proposed 80-foot-long, 16-inch-diameter intake pipe; (3) a proposed 18-
foot by 18-foot powerhouse containing one generating unit with an
installed capacity of 135 kilowatts; (4) a proposed 16-inch diameter,
50-foot discharge pipe, connecting to existing 42-inch diameter and 10-
inch diameter pipes conveying the water to the Maerkle Tank and Maerkle
Dam Reservoir; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The applicant estimates
the project would have an average annual generation of 0.833 gigawatt-
hours.
    m. This filing is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, P-14501, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for review and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    n. Development Application--Any qualified applicant desiring to
file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular application, a
competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such
an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an
interested person to file the competing development application no
later than 120 days after the specified deadline date for the
particular application. Applications for preliminary permits will not
be accepted in response to this notice.
    o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business, address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit a competing development application. A notice of intent must be
served on the applicant named in this public notice.
    p. Protests or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit a protest or
a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In
determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will
consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party
to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be
received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular
application.
    q. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;''
(2) set forth in the heading, the name of the applicant and the project
number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the
name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or
intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Any of
these documents must be filed by providing the original and seven
copies to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be sent
to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the
above address. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be
served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in

the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    r. Waiver of Pre-filing Consultation: In January 2011, the
applicant informed agencies and affected Indian Tribes of its request
to waive the Commission's consultation requirements under 18 CFR
4.38(c). No objections were received. Therefore, the Commission intends
to accept the consultation that has occurred on this project during the
pre-filing period and to waive pre-filing consultation under section
4.38(c), which requires, among other things, conducting studies
requested by resource agencies, and distributing and consulting on a
draft exemption application.

    Dated: June 11, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14273 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15452-15453]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053]

Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle
Electronic Devices

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of technical workshop.

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

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2012, NHTSA published proposed Visual-Manual
Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices. NHTSA
is announcing a public workshop to discuss technical issues relevant to
these proposed Guidelines. The workshop will include brief NHTSA
presentations outlining the content of and basis for the Guidelines and
will provide opportunities for the public to ask questions and present
information on the technical aspects of the proposed Guidelines.

DATES: Technical Workshop. The technical workshop will be held on March
23, 2012, at the location indicated in the ADDRESSES section below. The
workshop will start at 9 a.m. and is scheduled to continue until 12
p.m., local time. However, the workshop will continue beyond 12 p.m. if
there are presenters who have not yet had a chance to make their
presentation or if the presiding official believes that allowing the
discussion to extend beyond that time would be beneficial. If you would
like to attend the technical workshop and either make a presentation or
participate in the discussion, please contact the person identified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than March 16, 2012.
    Written comments. As announced in the proposal, to be assured of
consideration, written comments on the proposed NHTSA Guidelines must
be received by April 24, 2012 (77 FR 11200).

ADDRESSES: The March 23, 2012 technical workshop will be held at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle and Research
Test Center, 10820 State Route 347--Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you would like to attend the
technical workshop and either make a presentation or participate in the
discussion, please contact Elizabeth Mazzae, by the date specified
under DATES section above, at: Applied Crash Avoidance Research
Division, Vehicle Research and Test Center, NHTSA, 10820 State Route
347--Bldg. 60, East Liberty, Ohio 43319; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Please provide her with the following information: Name,
affiliation, address, email address, telephone and fax numbers, and
indicate whether you require accommodations such as a sign language
interpreter or translator or whether you plan to use technological aids
(e.g., audio-visuals, computer slideshows).
    You may learn more about the proposed NHTSA Guidelines by visiting
the Department of Transportation's Web site on distracted driving,
Distraction.gov, NHTSA's Web site, www.nhtsa.gov, or by searching the
public docket (NHTSA-2010-0053) at www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed NHTSA Guidelines are meant to
promote safety by discouraging the introduction of excessively
distracting devices in vehicles. These NHTSA Guidelines, which are
voluntary, apply to communications, entertainment, information
gathering, and navigation devices or functions that are not required to
operate the vehicle safely and that are operated by the driver through
visual-manual means (meaning

the driver looking at a device, manipulating a device-related control
with the driver's hand, and watching for visual feedback).
    The proposed NHTSA Guidelines list certain secondary, non-driving
related tasks that, based on NHTSA's research, are believed by the
agency to interfere inherently with a driver's ability to safely
control the vehicle. The Guidelines recommend that those in-vehicle
devices be designed so that they cannot be used by the driver to
perform such tasks while the driver is driving. For all other
secondary, non-driving-related visual-manual tasks, the NHTSA
Guidelines specify a test method for measuring the impact of performing
those tasks on driving safety and time-based acceptance criteria for
assessing whether a task interferes too much with driver attention to
be suitable to be performed while driving. If a task does not meet the
acceptance criteria, the NHTSA Guidelines recommend that in-vehicle
devices be designed so that the task cannot be performed by the driver
while driving.
    In addition to identifying inherently distracting tasks and
providing a means for measuring and evaluating the level of distraction
associated with other non-driving-related tasks, the NHTSA Guidelines
set forth several design recommendations for in-vehicle devices in
order to minimize their potential for distraction.
    The proposed NHTSA Guidelines were published in the Federal
Register on February 24, 2012 (77 FR 11200) and are available on the
Web pages listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and also
in the rulemaking docket. The notice is also available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Distraction_NPFG-02162012.pdf.
    Background information concerning the proposal in particular and
the problem of distracted driving in general is available at http://
www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/
U.S.+Department+of+Transportation+Proposes+'Distraction'+Guidelines+for+
Automakers and at http://www.distraction.gov/.
    The purpose of the public technical workshop is to provide
interested parties with an opportunity to discuss issues relevant to
the technical aspects of NHTSA's Visual-Manual Driver Distraction
Guidelines. The workshop will include brief NHTSA presentations
outlining the content and basis of the proposed Guidelines. The
workshop will be held in a lab environment.
    Technical Workshop Procedures. Because the technical workshop will
be located in a lab environment, NHTSA requests that the number of
those attending from each affiliation be held to a minimum. For
security purposes, photo identification is required to enter NHTSA's
Vehicle Research and Test Center.
    NHTSA will conduct the workshop informally. Thus, technical rules
of evidence will not apply. There will be an opportunity for attendees
to make presentations and ask NHTSA staff questions related to the
technical aspects of the proposed Guidelines.
    Once NHTSA establishes how many people have registered to make
presentations at the workshop, we will allocate an appropriate amount
of time to each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. In
addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the
audience who wants to make a presentation.
    For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for
approximately 15-20 minutes, although we may need to shorten that time
if there is a large turnout. We will accommodate your requested
presentation time to the extent we can, consistent with the other
requests we receive. We request that you bring three copies of your
statement or other material (e.g., film clips and slides) so that it
can be placed into the docket.
    If you plan to use technological aids (e.g., audio-visuals,
computer slideshows), you must notify the contact person in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above in advance of the meeting and
make advance arrangements with that person regarding the use of any
aids in order to facilitate set-up.
    Presenters wishing to provide supplementary information should
submit it by the April 24th deadline for written comments. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the technical workshop.

    Issued on March 9, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-6266 Filed 3-12-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P