[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45497-45499]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20964]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0267; FRL-9968-62-Region 7]

Approval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Elements of the
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission, and an amended SIP submission from the State of Iowa for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). Infrastructure SIPs address the applicable
requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110, which requires that
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by the EPA.
These SIPs are commonly referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 28, 2017,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October
30, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0267, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 revision been
met?
    III. What action is EPA taking?
    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving elements of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on July
29, 2013. Specifically, EPA is approving the following elements of
section 110(a)(2): (A),(B),(C),(D)(i)(II)--prevent of significant
deterioration of air quality (prong 3), and (D)(ii), (E) through (H),
and (J) through (M). A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as
part of the docket to discuss the details of this action, including
analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for
infrastructure SIPs.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state initiated
public comment from April 6, 2013, to May 8, 2013. One comment was
received and adequately addressed in the final SIP submission. This
submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. In addition, as explained in above preamble and in more
detail in the TSD which is part of this docket, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving elements of the July 23, 2013, infrastructure SIP
submission from the State of Iowa, which addresses the requirements of
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2010 SO2
NAAQS. As stated above, EPA is approving the following elements of
section 110(a)(2): (A),(B),(C),(D)(i)(II)--prevent of significant
deterioration of air quality (prong 3), and (D)(ii), (E) through (H),
and (J) through (M). Details of the submission are addressed in the
TSD, included as part of the docket, and discuss this approval action.
    EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(I). Section
110(a)(2)(I) requires that in the case of a plan or plan revision for
areas designated as nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable
requirements of part D of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for
designated nonattainment areas. EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP
submissions to address element (I). The specific SIP submissions for
designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D,
are subject to different submission schedules than those for section
110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on part D attainment
plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking governed by the
requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in part D.
    EPA is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and
2, and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4.
    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a

noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in
the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue of the Federal Register,
we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed
rule to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are received on
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document. If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule.

IV. 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);
     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 section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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).
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 28, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this direct 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 20, 2017.
Cathy Stepp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:

PART52--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. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``(48) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements
2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS'' in numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or         State       EPA approval date        Explanation
           provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(48) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)  Statewide.........         7/23/13  9/29/17, [insert    This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                          Federal Register    the following CAA
 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS.                                           citation].          elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A),(B),(C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) prong 3,
                                                                                and (D)(ii),
                                                                                (E),(F),(G),(H),(J),(K
                                                                                ),(L), and (M).
                                                                                110(a)(2)(I) is not
                                                                                applicable. [EPA-R07-
                                                                                OAR-2017-0267; FRL-
                                                                                9968-62-Region 7].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-20964 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Panel Members for the Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)

to consider and review

Draft Framework and Case Studies on Atrazine, Human Incidents, and the Agricultural Health Study:  Incorporation of Epidemiology and Human Incident Data into Human Health Risk Assessment

February 2-5, 2010

Docket no. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0851		OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, MI

Designated Federal Official

Myrta R. Christian, M.S.

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,   HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

John R. Bucher, Ph.D., DABT

Associate Director

Environmental Toxicology Program

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

Research Triangle Park, NC

Janice E. Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, Fellow ATS

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS

Carey N. Pope, Ph.D.

Professor, Head & Sitlington Chair of Toxicology

Department of Physiological Sciences

Oklahoma State University College of Veterinary Medicine

Stillwater, OK

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

National Home Office

Atlanta, GA

FQPA Science Review Board Members

John Bailar, M.D.,Ph.D.

Scholar in Residence,

The National Academies

Washington, DC

&

Professor Emeritus

University of Chicago

Frank J. Bove, Sc.D

Senior Epidemiologist

Division of Health Studies

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)/CDC

Atlanta, GA

Richard Greenwood, Ph.D.

Professor of Environmental Science

School of Biological Sciences

University of Portsmouth

Portsmouth PO1 2DY

UK

Ellen B. Gold, Ph.D.

Professor and Chair

Department of Public Health Sciences

UC Davis School of Medicine

Davis, CA

Shelley A. Harris, Ph.D.

Scientist, Population Studies and Surveillance

Cancer Care Ontario

Toronto, Ontario

&

Associate Professor,

Dalla Lana School of Public Health

University of Toronto

William Hayton, Ph.D.

Professor, Division of Pharmaceutics

The Ohio State University

Columbus, OH

Gerald A. LeBlanc, Ph.D.

Professor and Department Head

Dept. of Environmental & Molecular Toxicology

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC

Chensheng Lu, Ph.D.

Mark and Catherine Winkler Assistant Professor of Environmental Exposure Biology

Department of Environmental Health

Exposure, Epidemiology and Risk Program

Harvard School of Public Health

Boston, Massachusetts

Michele Marcus, MPH, Ph.D.

Professor and Interim Chair

Director of Graduate Studies

Department of Epidemiology

Rollins School of Public Health

Emory University

Atlanta, GA

Bette Meek, Ph.D.

Associate Director, Chemical Risk Assessment

McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment

University of Ottawa

Ottawa, Ontario

CANADA

Ruby Reed, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.

Staff Toxicologist

Department of Pesticide Regulation, Health Assessment Section

Medical Toxicology Branch

California EPA

Sacramento, CA

John S. Reif, D.V.M., M.Sc.(med)

Professor and Head

Section of Epidemiology

Environmental Health 1681

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO

 PAGE

 PAGE   4


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31946-31948]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0501]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Third Party Disclosure and Recordkeeping Requirements
for Reportable Food

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice invites comments on the information collection
provisions of FDA's third party disclosure and recordkeeping
requirements for reportable food.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by August 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' ' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5
CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members
of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, we are publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite
comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on

respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information
technology.

Third Party Disclosure and Recordkeeping Requirements for Reportable
Food--21 U.S.C. 350f (OMB Control Number 0910-0643)--Extension

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by
the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) (Pub.
L. 110-85) requires the establishment of a Reportable Food Registry
(the Registry) by which instances of reportable food must be submitted
to FDA by responsible parties and may be submitted by public health
officials. Section 417 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350f) defines
``reportable food'' as an ``article of food (other than infant formula)
for which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or
exposure to, such article of food will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death to humans or animals.'' (Section 417(a)(2) of the
FD&C Act). We believe that the most efficient and cost effective means
to implement the Registry is by utilizing our electronic Safety
Reporting Portal. The information collection provisions associated with
the submission of reportable food reports has been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0645.
    In conjunction with the reportable foods requirements, section 417
of the FD&C Act also establishes third party disclosure and
recordkeeping burdens. Specifically, we may require the responsible
party to notify the immediate previous source(s) and/or immediate
subsequent recipient(s) of a reportable food (sections 417(d)(6)(B)(i)
to (ii) of the FD&C Act). Similarly, we may also require the
responsible party that is notified (i.e., the immediate previous source
and/or immediate subsequent recipient) to notify their own immediate
previous source(s) and/or immediate subsequent recipient(s) of a
reportable food (sections 417(d)(7)(C)(i) to (ii) of the FD&C Act).
    Notification to the immediate previous source(s) and immediate
subsequent recipient(s) of the article of food may be accomplished by
electronic communication methods such as email, fax, or text messaging
or by telegrams, mailgrams, or first-class letters. Notification may
also be accomplished by telephone call or other personal contacts but
we recommend that such notifications also be confirmed by one of the
previous methods and/or documented in an appropriate manner. We may
require that the notification include any or all of the following data
elements: (1) The date on which the article of food was determined to
be a reportable food; (2) a description of the article of food
including the quantity or amount; (3) the extent and nature of the
adulteration; (4) the results of any investigation of the cause of the
adulteration if it may have originated with the responsible party, if
known; (5) the disposition of the article of food, when known; (6)
product information typically found on packaging including product
codes, use-by dates, and the names of manufacturers, packers, or
distributors sufficient to identify the article of food; (7) contact
information for the responsible party; (8) contact information for
parties directly linked in the supply chain and notified under section
417(d)(6)(B) or 417(d)(7)(C) of the FD&C Act, as applicable; (9) the
information required by FDA to be included in the notification provided
by the responsible party involved under section 417(d)(6)(B) or
417(d)(7)(C) of the FD&C Act or required to report under section
417(d)(7)(A) of the FD&C Act; and (10) the unique number described in
section 417(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (section 417(d)(6)(B)(iii)(I),
(d)(7)(C)(iii)(I), and (e) of the FD&C Act). We may also require that
the notification provides information about the actions that the
recipient of the notification will perform and/or any other information
we may require (section 417(d)(6)(B)(iii)(II), (d)(6)(B)(iii)(III),
(d)(7)(C)(iii)(II), and (d)(7)(C)(iii)(III) of the FD&C Act).
    Section 417(g) of the FD&C Act requires that responsible persons
maintain records related to reportable foods for a period of 2 years.
    The congressionally-identified purpose of the Registry is to
provide ``a reliable mechanism to track patterns of adulteration in
food [which] would support efforts by the Food and Drug Administration
to target limited inspection resources to protect the public health''
(FDAAA, section 1005(a)(4)). The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements described previously are designed to enable FDA to quickly
identify and track an article of food (other than infant formula) for
which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to
such article of food will cause serious adverse health consequences or
death to humans or animals. We use the information collected under
these regulations to help ensure that such products are quickly and
efficiently removed from the market.
    As required under section 1005(f) of FDAAA and to assist industry,
we have issued the draft guidance document entitled, ``Questions and
Answers Regarding the Reportable Food Registry as Established by the
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Edition 2),''
which is available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/RFR/ucm212793.htm. The draft
guidance contains questions and answers relating to the requirements
under section 417 of the FD&C Act, including (1) how, when and where to
submit reports to FDA; (2) who is required to submit reports to FDA;
(3) what is required to be submitted to FDA; and (4) what may be
required when providing notifications to other persons in the supply
chain of an article of food. The guidance also refers to previously
approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The
collections of information in questions D5 and D6 of the guidance have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0249.
    Description of Respondents: Mandatory respondents to this
collection of information are the owners, operators, or agents in
charge of a domestic or foreign facility engaged in manufacturing,
processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the United
States (``responsible parties'') who have information on a reportable
food. Voluntary respondents to this collection of information are
Federal, State, and local public health officials who have information
on a reportable food.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                           Table 1--Estimated Annual Third Party Disclosure Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of
      Activity/Section           Number of      disclosures     Total annual      Average burden per      Total
                                respondents    per respondent    disclosures          disclosure          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notifying immediate previous           1,200                1           1,200  0.6 (36 minutes).......       720
 source of the article of
 food under section
 417(d)(6)(B)(i) of the FD&C
 Act (mandatory reporters
 only).
Notifying immediate                    1,200                1           1,200  0.6 (36 minutes).......       720
 subsequent recipient of the
 article of food under
 section 417(d)(6)(B)(ii) of
 the FD&C Act (mandatory
 reporters only).
Notifying immediate previous           1,200                1           1,200  0.6 (36 minutes).......       720
 source of the article of
 food under section
 417(d)(7)(C)(i) of the FD&C
 Act (mandatory reporters
 only).
Notifying immediate                    1,200                1           1,200  0.6 (36 minutes).......       720
 subsequent recipient of the
 article of food under
 section 417(d)(7)(C)(ii) of
 the FD&C Act (mandatory
 reporters only).
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................  ..............  ...............  ..............  .......................     2,880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

Third Party Disclosure

    We estimate that approximately 1,200 reportable food events with
mandatory reporters will occur annually. Based on past FDA experiences,
we estimate that we could receive 200 to 1,200 ``reportable'' food
reports annually from 200 to 1,200 mandatory and voluntary users of the
electronic reporting system. We utilized the upper-bound estimate of
1,200 for these calculations.
    We estimate that notifying the immediate previous source(s) will
take 0.6 hours per reportable food and notifying the immediate
subsequent recipient(s) will take 0.6 hours per reportable food. We
also estimate that it will take 0.6 hours for the immediate previous
source and/or the immediate subsequent recipient to also notify their
immediate previous source(s) and/or immediate subsequent recipient(s).
The Agency bases its estimate on its experience with mandatory and
voluntary reports submitted to FDA.
    Although it is not mandatory under FDAAA section 1005 that
responsible persons notify the sources and recipients of instances of
reportable food, for purposes of the burden estimate we are assuming
FDA would exercise its authority and require such notifications in all
such instances for mandatory reporters. This notification burden will
not affect voluntary reporters of reportable food events. Therefore, we
estimate that the total burden of notifying the immediate previous
source(s) and immediate subsequent recipient(s) under section
417(d)(6)(B)(i), (d)(6)(B)(ii), (d)(7)(C)(i), and (d)(7)(C)(ii) of the
FD&C Act for 1,200 reportable foods will be 2,880 hours annually (1,200
x 0.6 hours) + (1,200 x 0.6 hours) + (1,200 x 0.6 hours) + (1,200 x 0.6
hours). This annual burden is shown in Table 1.

                               Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of
      Activity/section           Number of      records per     Total annual     Average burden  per      Total
                               recordkeepers   recordkeeping     records \2\            record            hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance of reportable              1,200                1           1,200  0.25 (15 minutes)......       300
 food records under section
 417(g) of the FD&C Act--
 mandatory reports.
Maintenance of reportable                600                1             600  0.25 (15 minutes)......       150
 food records under section
 417(g) of the FD&C Act--
 voluntary reports.
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................  ..............  ...............  ..............  .......................       450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.
\2\ For purposes of estimating number of records and hours per record, a ``record'' means all records kept for
  an individual reportable food by the responsible party or a voluntary reporter.

Recordkeeping

    As noted previously, section 417(g) of the FD&C Act requires that
responsible persons maintain records related to reportable foods
reports and notifications under section 417 of the FD&C Act for a
period of 2 years. Based on past FDA experiences, we estimate that each
mandatory report and its associated notifications will require 30
minutes of recordkeeping for the 2-year period, or 15 minutes per
record per year. The annual recordkeeping burden for mandatory
reportable food reports and their associated notifications is thus
estimated to be 300 hours (1,200 x 0.25 hours).
    We do not expect that records will always be kept in relation to
voluntary reportable food reports. Therefore, we estimate that records
will be kept for 600 of the 1,200 voluntary reports we expect to
receive annually. The recordkeeping burden associated with voluntary
reports is thus estimated to be 150 hours annually (600 x 0.25 hours).
The estimated total annual recordkeeping burden will be 450 hours
annually (1,200 x 0.25 hours) + (600 x 0.25 hours). This annual burden
is shown in Table 2.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-12823 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23164-23167]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09068]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0243; A-1-FRL-9945-12-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Stage I Vapor Recovery Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont.
This revision includes regulatory amendments that clarify and Stage I
vapor recovery requirements at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs).
The intended effect of this action is to approve Vermont's revised
Stage I vapor recovery regulations. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 20, 2016, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 20, 2016. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2015-0243 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0660, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Vermont's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's SIP Revision
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On January 26, 2015, the State of Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation submitted a formal

revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision
consists of Vermont's revised Air Pollution Control Regulation (APCR)
Section 5-101, Definitions; APCR Section 5-253.2, Bulk Gasoline
Terminals; APCR Section 5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants; and APCR Section
5-253.5, Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities.
    Stage I vapor recovery systems are systems that capture vapors
displaced from storage tanks at GDFs during gasoline tank truck
deliveries. When gasoline is delivered into an aboveground or
underground storage tank, vapors that were taking up space in the
storage tank are displaced by the gasoline entering the storage tank.
The Stage I vapor recovery systems route these displaced vapors into
the delivery truck's tank. Some vapors are vented when the storage tank
exceeds a specified pressure threshold, however the Stage I vapor
recovery systems greatly reduce the possibility of these displaced
vapors being released into the atmosphere.
    Stage I vapor recovery systems have been in place since the 1970s.
EPA has issued the following guidance regarding Stage I systems:
``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline Service
Stations'' (November 1975, EPA Online Publication 450R75102), which is
regarded as the control techniques guideline (CTG) for the control of
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from this source category;
and the EPA document ``Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for
Reasonably Available Control Technology'' (Staff Working Draft, June
1992) contains a model Stage I regulation. EPA has also issued the
following CTGs, relevant to this SIP revision: ``Control of
Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals'' (December
1977, EPA-450/2-77-026); and ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Bulk Gasoline Plants'' (December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-035).

II. Summary of Vermont's SIP Revision

    The Vermont APCR Section 5-253.2, Bulk Gasoline Terminals; Section
5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants; and Section 5-253.5, Stage I Vapor
Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, were initially
approved into the Vermont SIP on April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19829).
Vermont's APCRs required gasoline dispensing facilities throughout the
state to install Stage I vapor recovery systems and satisfied
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for gasoline dispensing
facilities, bulk gasoline terminals, and bulk gasoline plants. The SIP
revision approved on April 22, 1998 also included definitions in
Section 5-101, Definitions that were associated with the VOC RACT
rules.
    On January 26, 2015, Vermont submitted a SIP revision consisting of
its revised APCR Sections 5-101, 5-253.2, 5-253.3, and 5-253.5. This
SIP revision includes regulatory amendments that clarify Stage I vapor
recovery requirements, simplify definitions relating to gasoline
storage and distribution at gasoline terminals and bulk gasoline
plants, improve the consistency of the Vermont APCRs with federal
requirements for GDFs, and help to ensure that VOC emission reductions
achieved by existing Stage I vapor recovery systems are maintained.
    Vermont's January 26, 2015 SIP revision included the amended APCR
Section 5-253.5, Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities, which was revised to clarify requirements in the existing
Stage I vapor recovery regulation. Amongst other clarifying revisions
in Vermont's APCR Section 5-253.5, the Stage I vapor recovery
regulation was: Revised to ensure awareness that GDFs must also comply
with the federal regulations for GDFs, EPA's National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Category:
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCC; revised
to include definitions for ``dual-point vapor Stage I vapor recovery
system,'' ``monthly gasoline throughput,'' and ``startup''; and revised
to include a compliance schedule for the installation of dual-point
Stage I vapor recovery systems for those GDFs not already so equipped.
    In addition, the amended APCRs in Vermont's January 26, 2015 SIP
revision were revised as follows: The amended APCR Section 5-101,
Definitions, includes revised definitions for ``bulk gasoline
terminal'' and ``vapor balance system''; the amended APCR Section 5-
253.2, Bulk Gasoline Terminals, adds a reference to a ``vapor control
system'' in addition to the previous wording, which only referred to
``vapor collection system,'' thus clarifying that the gasoline vapors
displaced from gasoline tank trucks during loading must be collected
and controlled, and that the emission limits from such vapors apply to
both the collection and control systems; and the amended APCR Section
5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants, was revised for clarity as a result of
the revised APCR 5-101 definition of ``vapor balance system.''

III. EPA's Evaluation of Vermont's SIP Revision

    EPA has reviewed Vermont's revised APCRs Sections 5-101, 5-253.2,
5-253.3, and 5-253.5, and has concluded that Vermont's January 26, 2015
SIP revision is approvable. Specifically, Vermont's revised regulations
continue to be consistent with EPA's CTGs and meet RACT for the
relevant emission source categories.
    In addition, Vermont's revised APCRs included in the January 26,
2015 SIP revision are more stringent than the previously approved
versions of the rules, thus meeting the CAA section 110(l) anti-
backsliding requirements. EPA's most recent approval of APCR Sections
5-253.2 and 5-253.5 was on April 22, 1998 (see 63 FR 19825), Section 5-
253.3 was on July 19, 2011 (see 76 FR 42560), and Section 5-101 was on
October 5, 2012 (see 77 FR 60907). Vermont's revised APCRs submitted
with their January 26, 2015 SIP revision are more stringent by
incorporating the requirement for GDFs to meet the federal NESHAP and
by clarifying that Stage I requirements apply to vapor control systems
as well as vapor collection systems. Furthermore, the defined terms and
clarifications added to the Vermont APCRs ensure that all entities
subject to the regulations clearly understand the applicable
requirements.
    Finally, we note that in certain instances the regulations we are
approving authorize a Vermont ``Air Pollution Control Officer'' to make
certain determinations or to require specific actions. In approving
such provisions, although EPA's authority regarding such determinations
or actions is not expressly referenced in the regulatory text, EPA does
not intend, and could not intend as a matter of law, to preclude EPA
from exercising any legal authority EPA may have under the Clean Air
Act and its implementing regulations. The regulatory language at
Vermont APCR Section 5-253.5(c)(3), relating to determinations
regarding whether a facility is being operated and maintained in a
manner consistent with safety and good engineering practices for
minimizing emissions, is one example of such a provision. Although the
provision does not reference EPA's legal authority, the provision would
not, and could not, function as a legal matter to preclude EPA from
exercising any relevant authority it may have under the Clean Air Act
or its implementing regulations.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Vermont SIP, Vermont's
revised APCRs Section 5-101, Definitions; Section 5-253.2, Bulk
Gasoline Terminals; Section 5-253.3, Bulk Gasoline Plants; and Section
5-253.5, Stage I Vapor Recovery Controls at Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities. EPA is approving Vermont's January 26, 2015 SIP revision
because it meets all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA
guidance.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June
20, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant
adverse comments by May 20, 2016.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on June 20, 2016 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Vermont's
APCRs described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
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);
     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 Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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 June 20, 2016. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

     Dated: April 1, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart UU--Vermont

0
2. In Sec.  52.2370, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
entries for Sections 5-101, 5-253.2, 5-253.3, and 5-253.5 to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Vermont Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
         State citation              Title/subject        effective     EPA approval  date       Explanations
                                                            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-101..................  Definitions.........        12/29/14  April 20, 2016        Revised definitions
                                                                        [Insert Federal       for ``bulk
                                                                        Register citation].   gasoline
                                                                                terminal'' and
                                                                                ``vapor balance
                                                                                system.''.

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-253.2................  Bulk Gasoline               12/29/14  April 20, 2016
                                  Terminals.                            [Insert Federal
                                                                        Register citation].
Section 5-253.3................  Bulk Gasoline Plants        12/29/14  April 20, 2016
                                                                        [Insert Federal
                                                                        Register citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-253.5................  Stage I Vapor               12/29/14  April 20, 2016
                                  Recovery Controls                     [Insert Federal
                                  at Gasoline                           Register citation].
                                  Dispensing
                                  Facilities.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-09068 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 206)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60606-60609]
[DOCID:fr25oc07-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29343; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-13-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan
Engines

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37, RB211-535E4-B-
37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 series turbofan engines. That AD requires
initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspections of installed low pressure
compressor (LPC) fan blade roots on-wing and during overhaul, and
relubrication according to accumulated life cycles. That AD also
introduces an alternative technique to ultrasonically inspect installed
fan blades on-wing using a surface wave ultrasonic probe. Also, that AD
introduces application of Metco 58 blade root coating as an optional
terminating action. This proposed AD would require the same actions but
would add compliance paragraphs to relax the compliance schedule for
repetitive inspections for RB211-535E4 engines operating in flight
profiles A and B, if certain requirements are met. This proposed AD
results from RR issuing Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. RB.211-72-
C879, Revision 5. That MSB introduces a relaxed repetitive compliance
schedule for RB211-535E4 engines operating in flight profiles A and B,
if certain requirements are met. We are proposing this AD to detect
cracks in LPC fan blade roots, which if not detected, could lead to
uncontained multiple fan blade failure, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by December 24,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ;
telephone: 011-44-1332-242-424; fax: 011-44-1332-249-936 for the
service information identified in this proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-29343;
Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-13-AD'' in the subject line of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

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

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    On January 18, 2005, we issued AD 2005-02-05, Amendment 39-13950
(70 FR 3863, January 27, 2005). That AD requires initial and repetitive
ultrasonic inspections of installed LPC fan blade roots on-wing and
during overhaul using a surface wave ultrasonic probe, and
relubrication according to accumulated life cycles. That AD also adds
the application of Metco 58 blade root coating as an optional
terminating action. That AD results from RR issuing MSB No. RB.211-72-
C879, Revision 4, which contains revised Accomplishment Instructions
and consumable materials list.

Actions Since We Issued AD 2005-02-05

    Since we issued AD 2005-02-05, Rolls-Royce plc updated MSB No.
RB.211-72-C879, Revision 4, dated April 2, 2004, to Revision 5, dated
March 8, 2007, for RR RB211 series turbofan engines. Revision 5 relaxes
the compliance for repetitive inspections for RB211-535E4 engines
operating in flight profiles A and B, if certain requirements are met.

Clarification Changes

    Also, as clarification, we changed the Table 4 initial compliance
from ``65% hard life'' to ``within 350 cycles after achieving 65% hard
life''. These changes better reflect the proposed AD wording, with the
latest MSB.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Rolls-Royce
plc MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 5, dated March 8, 2007. That MSB
describes procedures for ultrasonic inspection of high cyclic life
blades on-wing with either the LPC fan blades in place or removed from
the LPC. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness
authority for the United Kingdom (UK), classified the original issue of
the service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD 002-01-2000 to ensure
the airworthiness of these RR engines in the UK.

Bilateral Agreement Information

    This engine model is manufactured in UK and is type certificated
for operation in the United States under the provisions of Section
21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the
applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Under this bilateral
airworthiness agreement, the UK kept us informed of the situation
described above. We have examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all
available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for
products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the
United States.

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 products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require
initial and repetitive ultrasonic inspection of installed LPC fan blade
roots on-wing and during overhaul using a surface wave ultrasonic
probe, and relubrication according to accumulated life cycles. This
proposed AD would also maintain the application of Metco 58 blade root
coating as an optional terminating action. The proposed AD would
require that you do these actions using the service information
described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 788 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 7 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and
that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S.
operators to be $358,540.

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 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. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13950 (70 FR
3863, January 27, 2005) and by adding a new airworthiness directive, to
read as follows:

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2007-29343; Directorate Identifier
2000-NE-13-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by December 24,
2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 2005-02-05, Amendment 39-13950.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37,
RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-B-75 series turbofan engines with
low pressure compressor (LPC) fan blades with the part numbers (P/
Ns) listed in Table 1 of this AD. These engines are installed on,
but not limited to, Boeing 757 and Tupolev Tu204 series airplanes.
Table 1 follows:

                                     Table 1.--Applicable LPC Fan Blade P/Ns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL16135                UL16171                UL16182                UL19643                UL20044
UL20132                UL20616                UL21345                UL22286                UL23122
UL24525                UL24528                UL24530                UL24532                UL24534
UL27992                UL28601                UL28602                UL29511                UL29556
UL30817                UL30819                UL30933                UL30935                UL33707
UL33709                UL36992                UL37090                UL37272                UL37274
UL37276                UL37278                UL38029                UL38032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from RR issuing Mandatory Service Bulletin
(MSB) No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 5, that introduces a relaxed
repetitive compliance schedule for RB211-535E4 engines operating in
flight profiles A and B, if certain requirements are met. We are
issuing this AD to detect cracks in low pressure compressor (LPC)
fan blade roots, which if not detected, could lead to uncontained
multiple fan blade failure, and damage to the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.
    (f) If you have a full set of fan blades, modified using RR
Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-C946, Revision 2, dated September 26,
2002, that can be identified by a blue triangle etched on the blade
airfoil suction surface close to the leading edge tip of each blade,
no further action is required.
    (g) On RB211-535E4 engines, operated to Flight Profile A,
ultrasonically inspect, and if required, relubricate using the
following Table 2:

                                     Table 2.--RB211-535E4 Flight Profile A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Initial inspection                            In accordance with
    Engine location       within cycles-          Type action          mandatory service      Repeat inspection
                         since-new  (CSN)                               bulletin  (MSB)         within  (CSN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) On-wing...........              17,350  (i) Root Probe,         RB.211-72-C879                         1,400
                                             inspect and             Revision 5, 3.A.(1)
                                             relubricate, OR         through 3.A.(7),
                                                                     dated March 8, 2007.
                        ..................  (ii) Wave Probe.......  RB.211-72-C879                         1,150
                                                                     Revision 5, 3.B.(1)
                                                                     through 3.B.(7),
                                                                     dated March 8, 2007.
(2) In Shop...........              17,350  Root Probe, inspect     RB.211-72-C879                         1,400
                                             and relubricate.        Revision 5, 3.C.(1)
                                                                     through 3.C.(4),
                                                                     dated March 8, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) On RB211-535E4 engines, operated to Flight Profile B,
ultrasonically inspect, and if required, relubricate using the
following Table 3:

                                     Table 3.--RB211-535E4 Flight Profile B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Initial inspection                                                    Repeat inspection
    Engine location         within  (CSN)          Type action        In accordance with MSB     within  (CSN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) On-wing............              12,350  (i) Root Probe, inspect  RB.211-72-C879                         850
                                              and relubricate, OR      Revision 5, 3.A.(1)
                                                                       through 3.A.(7),
                                                                       dated March 8, 2007.
                         ..................  (ii) Wave Probe........  RB.211-72-C879                         700
                                                                       Revision 5, 3.B.(1)
                                                                       through 3.B.(7),
                                                                       dated March 8, 2007.
(2) In Shop............              12,350  Root Probe, inspect and  RB.211-72-C879                         850
                                              relubricate.             Revision 5, 3.C.(1)
                                                                       through 3.C.(4),
                                                                       dated March 8, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) On RB211-535E4 engines, operated to combined Flight Profile
A and B, ultrasonically inspect, and if required, relubricate using
the following Table 4:

                                  Table 4.--RB211-535E4 Flight Profile A and B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Initial inspection                          In accordance with    Repeat inspection
     Engine location           within  (CSN)          Type action               MSB             within  (CSN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) On-wing..............  350 cycles after      (i) Root Probe,       RB.211-72-C879        As current flight
                            achieving 65% hard    inspect and           Revision 5, 3.A.(1)   profile. See
                            life (To calculate,   relubricate, OR       through 3.A.(7),      paragraphs (j) and
                            see MSB Compliance                          dated March 8, 2007.  (k) of this AD.
                            Section 1.C.(4)).
                                                 (ii) Wave Probe.....  RB.211-72-C879        As current flight
                                                                        Revision 5, 3.B.(1)   profile. See
                                                                        through 3.B.(7),      paragraphs (j) and
                                                                        dated March 8, 2007.  (k) of this AD.
(2) In Shop..............  350 cycles after      Root Probe, inspect   RB.211-72-C879        As current flight
                            achieving 65% hard    and relubricate.      Revision 5, 3.C.(1)   profile. See
                            life (To calculate,                         through 3.C.(4),      paragraphs (j) and
                            see MSB Compliance                          dated March 8, 2007.  (k) of this AD.
                            Section 1.C.(4)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (j) For RB.211-535E4 engines that are currently flying in
Profile A, if the initial inspection is completed before X minus
1,400 cycles then the next inspection may be delayed to X, where X
is 65% of the revised life limit.
    (k) For RB.211-535E4 engines that are currently flying in
Profile B, if the initial inspection is completed before X minus 850
cycles then the next inspection may be delayed to X, where X is 65%
of the revised life limit.
    (l) Fan blades that have been operated within RB.211-535E4
Flight Profile A and B will have final life as defined in the Time
Limits Manual. See References Section 1.G.(3), of MSB RB.211-72-
C879, Revision 5, dated March 8, 2007.
    (m) On RB.211-535E4-B engines, ultrasonically inspect, and if
required, relubricate using the following Table 5:

                                             Table 5.--RB211-535E4-B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Initial inspection                                                    Repeat inspection
    Engine location         within  (CSN)          Type action        In accordance with MSB     within  (CSN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) On-wing............              17,000  (i) Root Probe, inspect  RB.211-72-C879                       1,200
                                              and relubricate, OR      Revision 5, 3.A.(1)
                                                                       through 3.A.(7),
                                                                       dated March 8, 2007.
                                             (ii) Wave Probe........  RB.211-72-C879                       1,000
                                                                       Revision 5, 3.B.(1)
                                                                       through 3.B.(7),
                                                                       dated March 8, 2007.
(2) In Shop............              17,000  Root Probe, inspect and  RB.211-72-C879                       1,200
                                              relubricate.             Revision 5, 3.C.(1)
                                                                       through 3.C.(4),
                                                                       dated March 8, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Optional Terminating Action

    (n) Application of Metco 58 blade root coating using RR SB No.
RB.211-72-C946, Revision 2, dated September 26, 2002, constitutes
terminating action to the repetitive inspection requirements
specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (k) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

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

Previous Credit

    (p) Previous credit is allowed for initial and repetitive
inspections performed using AD 2003-12-15 (Amendment 39-13200, 68 FR
37735, June 25, 2003), RR MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 3, dated
October 9, 2002, and RR MSB No. RB.211-72-C879, Revision 4, dated
April 2, 2004.

Related Information

    (q) CAA airworthiness directive AD 002-01-2000, dated October 9,
2002, also addresses the subject of this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 18, 2007.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-20999 Filed 10-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25791-25794]
[DOCID:fr10my10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0438; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-265-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) Airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) Airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional
Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    The heating capability of several [angle of attack] AOA
transducer heating elements removed from in-service aircraft has
been found to be below the minimum requirement. Also, it was
discovered that a large number of AOA transducers repaired in an
approved maintenance facility were not calibrated accurately.
    Inaccurate calibration of the AOA transducer and/or degraded AOA
transducer heating elements can result in early or late activation
of the stall warning, stick shaker and stick pusher by the Stall
Protection Computer (SPC).

Inaccurate calibration of the AOA transducers and/or degraded AOA
transducer heating elements could result in an ineffective response to
an

aerodynamic stall and reduced controllability of the airplane. The
proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 24, 2010.

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 W12-40, 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
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. 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; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; 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-2010-0438;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-265-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 have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    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 October 16, 2009, we issued AD 2009-22-12, Amendment 39-16065
(74 FR 55767, October 29, 2009). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    When we issued AD 2009-22-12, we stated that we did not include
certain actions (the inspection to determine if certain transducers are
installed and replaced if necessary in paragraph (h) of this proposed
AD) because the planned compliance time was not enough to give notice
as AD 2009-22-12 was issued as an immediately adopted rule. We now have
determined that further rulemaking is indeed necessary, and this
proposed AD follows from that determination.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-27-053, Revision
A, dated July 7, 2009. 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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 368 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2009-22-12 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the currently required actions is $85 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $156,400, or $425 per product.

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); 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.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-16065 (74 FR
55767, October 29, 2009) and adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0438; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-265-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 24, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2009-22-12, Amendment 39-16065.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional
Jet Series 900) airplanes; certificated in any category, that are
equipped with Thales angle of attack (AOA) transducers having part
number (P/N) C16258AA.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The heating capability of several [angle of attack] AOA
transducer heating elements removed from in-service aircraft has
been found to be below the minimum requirement. Also, it was
discovered that a large number of AOA transducers repaired in an
approved maintenance facility were not calibrated accurately.
    Inaccurate calibration of the AOA transducer and/or degraded AOA
transducer heating elements can result in early or late activation
of the stall warning, stick shaker and stick pusher by the Stall
Protection Computer (SPC).
    This [Canadian] directive mandates a periodic inspection of the
inrush current to verify the AOA heating capability and replacement
of the inaccurately calibrated AOA transducers.

Inaccurate calibration of the AOA transducers and/or degraded AOA
transducer heating elements could result in an ineffective response
to an aerodynamic stall and reduced controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
    Restatement of Requirements of AD 2009-22-12:
    (g) Do the following actions.
    (1) Within the applicable compliance times specified in Table 1
of this AD: Measure the inrush current of both AOA transducers, in
accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-051, dated May 14, 2009.

                      Table 1--Initial Measurement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   For any AOA transducer that, as of
 November 13, 2009 (the effective date    Do the initial inrush current
  of AD 2009-22-12), has accumulated--            measurement--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 6,500 total flight hours.....  Before the AOA transducer has
                                          accumulated 7,500 total flight
                                          hours.
More than or equal to 6,500 total        Within 500 flight hours after
 flight hours but less than 7,500 total   November 13, 2009 (the
 flight hours.                            effective date of AD
                                          2009[dash]22-12), but before
                                          the AOA transducer has
                                          accumulated 8,000 total flight
                                          hours.
More than or equal to 7,500 total        Within 250 flight hours after
 flight hours.                            November 13, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If, during any measurement required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, an AOA transducer is found to have an inrush current less
than 1.60 amps (``degraded'' transducer), before further flight
replace the transducer with a new or serviceable transducer, in
accordance with Part C of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-051, dated May 14, 2009. Do the
measurement specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for that
replacement transducer at the times specified in (g)(2)(i) or
(g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) At the applicable time specified in Table 2 of this AD if
the degraded transducer was replaced with a serviceable transducer
that is not new; or
    (ii) Within 2,000 flight hours after replacement if the degraded
transducer was replaced with a new one.
    (3) If, during any measurement required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, an AOA transducer is found to have an inrush current more
than or equal to 1.60 amps, repeat the measurement specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed
the applicable interval specified in Table 2 of this AD.

                Table 2--Repetitive Measurement Intervals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If the last inrush current measurement
 of the serviceable AOA transducer is--   Then repeat the measurement--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than or equal to 1.90 amps........  Within 2,000 flight hours after
                                          the last measurement.
More than or equal to 1.80 amps but      Within 1,500 flight hours after
 less than 1.90 amps.                     the last measurement.
More than or equal to 1.70 amps but      Within 1,000 flight hours after
 less than 1.80 amps.                     the last measurement.
More than or equal to 1.60 amps but      Within 500 flight hours after
 less than 1.70 amps.                     the last measurement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Requirements of This AD

    (h) Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD: Do an inspection to determine the serial number of the AOA
transducer having P/N C16258AA, and to determine if the serial
number has suffix ``A,'' in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-053, Revision
A, dated July 7, 2009.
    (1) If the serial number is not specified in paragraph 1.A.(1)
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-053, Revision A, dated July
7, 2009, no further action is required by this paragraph.
    (2) If the serial number is specified in paragraph 1.A.(1) of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-053, Revision A, dated July 7,
2009, and the serial number has a suffix ``A,'' no further action is
required by this paragraph.
    (3) If the serial number is specified in paragraph 1.A.(1) of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-053, Revision A, dated July 7,
2009, and the serial number does not have suffix ``A,'' before
further flight, replace the AOA transducer with a serviceable
transducer, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-053, Revision A, dated July 7,
2009.
    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install,
on any airplane, an AOA transducer having P/N C16258AA with any
serial number specified in paragraph 1.A.(1) of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-27-053, Revision A, dated July 7, 2009, unless the
serial number has a suffix ``A.''
    (j) Inspections and replacements accomplished before the
effective date of this AD according to Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-27-051, dated May 14, 2009, are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (k) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards 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 or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (l) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-35,
dated August 31, 2009; Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-051,
dated May 14, 2009; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-053,
Revision A, dated July 7, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-10887 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P