[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67854-67858]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0188; Product Identifier 2018-NM-174-AD; Amendment
39-19781; AD 2019-22-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-
400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports of uncommanded fore and aft movement of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats. This AD requires, for the
Captain's and First Officer's seats, repetitive horizontal actuator
identifications, repetitive checks of the horizontal movement system
(HMS), a detailed inspection of the HMS for certain airplanes, and
applicable on-condition actions. This AD also requires an inspection to
determine the part number and, if applicable, the serial number of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats, and applicable on-condition
actions. This AD also provides an optional terminating action for the
repetitive actions for certain seats. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 16, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 16,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0188.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0188; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3569; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747-8F, and 747-8 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on April 8, 2019 (84 FR 13840). The NPRM was prompted
by reports of uncommanded fore and aft movement of the Captain's and
First Officer's seats. The NPRM proposed to require, for the Captain's
and First Officer's seats, repetitive horizontal actuator
identifications, repetitive checks of the HMS, a detailed inspection of
the HMS for certain airplanes, and applicable on-condition actions. The
NPRM also proposed to require an inspection to determine the part
number and, if applicable, the serial number of the Captain's and First
Officer's seats and applicable on-condition actions. The NPRM also
proposed to provide an optional terminating action for the repetitive
actions for certain seats.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address uncommanded fore and aft
movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. An uncommanded
fore or aft seat movement during a critical part of a flight, such as
takeoff or landing, could cause a flight control obstruction or
unintended flight control input, which could result in the loss of the
ability to control the airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Supportive Comments

    Virgin Atlantic Airways and commenters Zhangyi Ye and Sunita
Kavthekar expressed their support for the NPRM.

Request To Clarify Maintenance Log Review Requirement

    Lufthansa Airlines (Lufthansa) stated that it is not possible for
its mechanics to do a maintenance log review on wing using the
procedures specified in Part A.1.c. of Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-
14, Issue 4, dated January 29, 2018.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is referring to the concurrent
requirements specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018, as required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    The FAA offers the following clarification: The concurrent

requirement in Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-14, Issue 4, dated January
29, 2018, contains Note 4, which specifies: ``Part A--Inspection for
the limit switch and the actuator assembly inspections can be
accomplished on the aircraft or on a test fixture.'' Part A--Inspection
requires checks of maintenance logs. Maintenance log reviews are
completed off-wing, typically where maintenance logs are kept. The on-
aircraft, or on-test fixture activity described in Note 4, refers to
the physical inspection of parts, which might be required, for example,
to determine a part number, a serial number, or a condition. Therefore,
the AD has not been changed in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Corrective Actions

    Lufthansa stated that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018, identified as a source
of service information for performing certain actions in the proposed
AD, does not provide a permanent and acceptable level of safety by
including a redesign of the horizontal actuator (including the shaft),
which is required to withstand and limit maximum loads to the
horizontal output shaft to prevent failure at any phase of seat
operation.
    Lufthansa added that this could be achieved by decoupling the shaft
when the maximum force is exceeded, or by a shutdown of the electronics
when the voltage is too high. Lufthansa added that further inspections
at the intervals specified in the service information are not
considered effective, and conditions leading to horizontal actuator
shaft failures can occur at any time in between these inspections.
Therefore, a more effective solution would be a crew procedure.
Lufthansa concluded that it expected a terminating action for modified/
compliant airplanes (e.g., mandatory maintenance documentation
amendments).
    The FAA offers the following clarification. The FAA has identified
the unsafe condition in this final rule as an uncommanded fore or aft
seat movement during a critical phase of flight, such as takeoff or
landing, that could cause a flight control obstruction or unintended
flight control input, which could result in the loss of the ability to
control the airplane.
    The FAA does not concur with the commenter's statement that
inspections at intervals are not effective. The FAA considered the
safety implications in defining the actions required by this AD and
determined the actions address the unsafe condition for all of the
airplanes identified in this AD.
    In addition, the terminating action for certain seats (those having
part number series 3A258) is identified in paragraph (j) of this AD,
which specifies the installation of a serviceable Captain's or First
Officer's seat as specified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018. A serviceable
Captain's or First Officer's seat is defined in paragraph 3.A. of the
referenced service information (i.e., certain seat part numbers that
have an horizontal actuator with Artus part number (P/N) AD8650503 at
`Amendment C' or later, which is the redesigned horizontal actuator
that is designed to withstand the limit loads that contribute to the
unsafe condition).
    Additionally, as specified in the referenced service information,
if the horizontal actuator is not P/N AD8650503 `Amendment C' or later,
the operator has the option to install a power-deactivated seat as
specified in the appropriate airplane maintenance manual (AMM)
procedure (AMM procedure 25-11-01-01), in lieu of the terminating
action or until the horizontal actuator can be serviced in accordance
with the appropriate service information. This provision removes the
unsafe condition in the time between the inspections.
    For seats on which a terminating action is not yet available, the
FAA has determined that repetitive checks of the HMS and the option to
install a power-deactivated seat adequately address the unsafe
condition. Thus, a crew procedure is not needed. However, if the FAA
obtains and analyzes additional data that indicates the unsafe
condition is not addressed by this AD, The FAA might consider further
rulemaking to mandate a terminating action for all seats. The AD has
not been changed in this regard.

Request To Change Applicability to Affected Components

    United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) asked that paragraph (g) of the
proposed AD be changed to mandate accomplishment of the required
actions by using certain Ipeco service bulletins. UPS stated that
paragraph (g) would require accomplishment of the actions using Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated
October 19, 2018. UPS noted that for the 3A258-004X and 3A090-00XX
seats, other than simple foreign object debris (FOD) inspections, the
referenced Boeing service information effectively specifies
accomplishment of the inspections and modifications per Ipeco Service
Bulletin 258-25-14, Issue 4, dated January 29, 2018; and inspections
per Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-13, Issue 3, dated November 27, 2017,
or per Ipeco Service Bulletin 211-25-06, Issue 2, dated March 21, 2018;
and inspections per Ipeco Service Bulletin 211-25-05, Issue 2, dated
March 21, 2018.
    UPS recommends that paragraph (g) mandate the accomplishment of the
applicable Ipeco service bulletin, depending on which seat is
installed.
    UPS also stated that there are NPRMs that mandate the same Ipeco
service information via fleet-specific Boeing service information on
Model 757 and 767 airplanes. UPS asked that the proposed AD be
applicable to the seats using Ipeco service information for compliance,
instead of applicable to the airplanes using Boeing service information
for compliance.
    UPS added that since the seats are interchangeable across several
fleets, mandating ADs against those fleets could result in, for
example, a specific seat being installed on a Model 747 airplane with
records identifying compliance with a Model 767 airplane AD. UPS noted
that this could lead to confusion and questions regarding compliance,
when there is no notable difference between the two ADs, and the AD
mandating a component service bulletin using a fleet service bulletin
leaves a compliance trap for the operators. UPS recommends there be two
separate ADs for this unsafe condition; one mandating the Ipeco service
information, and one mandating the Boeing service information for the
on-aircraft checks. UPS added that this would allow operators currently
using the Ipeco service information at a shop or during a C-check to
take credit for those actions at a component level in lieu of an
airplane level.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is asking that the agency use the
Ipeco service information instead of the Boeing service information;
the FAA does not agree. The Ipeco service information would necessitate
a component AD, and a component AD would require operators of all
airplanes on which an Ipeco seat is installed to inspect their
airplanes for the affected part number.
    However, the potential unsafe condition has been identified for
only those airplanes that are specified in the Boeing service
information. An unsafe condition has not been identified for the Ipeco
seats identified in this AD that are installed on other aircraft types.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that a component AD is not
appropriate, which is why this AD addresses Model

747 series airplanes and other AD actions require similar actions on
other Boeing airplanes for which the unsafe condition exists. Each AD
addresses the unsafe condition that might exist on the airplanes
identified in the applicability of each AD. If a seat has been removed
from a Model 767 airplane and installed on a Model 747 airplane, the
actions required by this AD would still be applicable to that seat even
if that seat had previously been shown to be in compliance with a Model
767 airplane AD.
    In addition, changing this airplane AD to a component AD would also
require an additional public comment period and would unnecessarily
delay issuance of this final rule. Therefore, the AD has not been
changed in this regard.

Request To Expand Applicability

    One commenter, Arjun C, stated that movement of the Captain's and
First Officer's seats during flight could potentially impair the
ability to effectively fly the airplane and keep all passengers safe.
The commenter pointed out that it might be worth expanding the
applicability in the proposed AD to all civilian airplanes flying in
U.S. airspace, and noted that simply calling out a single company might
be a bit myopic in scope. The commenter concluded that, overall, the
proposed AD should be effective if executed properly.
    The FAA does not agree with the request. The unsafe condition
defined in this AD affects only airplanes with the seats having Ipeco
part numbers identified in the referenced Boeing service information.
Expanding the applicability as requested would cause an undue burden on
operators with airplanes not subject to the unsafe condition.
Therefore, the AD has not been changed in this regard.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section

    Boeing asked that the ``Costs of Compliance'' section in the NPRM
be changed to reflect the ``actual cost'' of all the actions. Boeing
stated that the seat identification, inspection, and checks involve
only labor and should not include the cost of the actuator. Boeing also
noted that the ``Cost on U.S. Operators'' for the inspection should be
changed from ``$8,075 per seat'' to ``$85 per seat,'' and for the
checks the cost should be changed from ``$16,150 per seat, per check
cycle'' to ``$170 per seat, per check cycle.''
    The FAA agrees that the costs of the seat identification,
inspection, and checks do not include a cost for parts. In addition,
the FAA has revised the figures for these actions in the ``Cost on U.S.
Operators'' column by providing only the estimated fleet cost without
reference to cost per seat.
    Boeing asked that the actuator cost for the overhaul or replacement
be increased from ``Up to $6,400 per seat'' to ``Up to $16,091 per
seat,'' based on information received from the parts manufacturer with
the increased parts cost.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request to change the parts
cost, for the reason provided. The FAA has changed the parts cost for
the overhaul or replacement specified in the ``Costs of Compliance''
section accordingly.

Conclusion

    The FAA has reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-
3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018. This service information
describes procedures for an inspection to determine the part number,
and, if applicable, the serial number of the Captain's and First
Officer's seats and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition
actions include an inspection of each seat's fore/aft and vertical
manual control levers for looseness; moving the adjustment nut,
tightening the lock nut, readjusting the control lever, and doing a
functional test; and installing a serviceable seat.
    The FAA also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018. This service
information describes procedures for repetitive horizontal actuator
identifications, repetitive checks of the HMS, a detailed inspection of
the HMS, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions
include clearing the seat tracks of FOD, an overhaul of the HMS, and
checks of the HMS. The service information also describes procedures
for an optional terminating action for the repetitive checks by
installing a serviceable Captain's or First Officer's seat.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 95 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizontal actuator              1 work-hour x $85 per                $0  $85, per seat, per  Up to $16,150, per
 identification.                  hour = $85, per seat,                    identification      identification
                                  per identification                       cycle.              cycle
                                  cycle.
Detailed inspection, horizontal  1 work-hour x 85 per                  0  85, per seat......  Up to 16,150
 movement system.                 hour = 85, per seat.
Checks, horizontal movement      2 work-hour x 85 per                  0  170, per seat, per  Up to 32,300, per
 system.                          hour = 170, per seat,                    check cycle.        check cycle
                                  per check cycle.
Seat inspection (part and        1 work-hour x 85 per                  0  85, per seat......  16,150
 serial number).                  hour = 85, per seat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that will be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

                                    Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overhaul or replacement, horizontal  Up to 15 work-hours x $85    Up to $16,091, per      Up to $17,366, per
 movement system.                     per hour = Up to $1,275,     seat.                   seat
                                      per seat.
Inspection of each seat's fore/aft   1 work-hour x 85 per hour =  0.....................  85, per seat
 and vertical manual control levers.  85, per seat.
Installation of serviceable seats..  1 work-hour x 85 per hour =  0.....................  85, per seat
                                      85, per seat.
Clearing FOD.......................  1 work-hour x 85 per hour =  0.....................  85, per seat
                                      85, per seat.
Functional test, adjusted control    1 work-hour x 85 per hour =  0.....................  85, per seat
 lever cable.                         85, per seat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The estimated cost for tooling to align an affected seat for adjustment of the control lever cable is up to
  $46,064.

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the optional terminating action
for the on-condition repetitive checks specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-22-02 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19781; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0188; Product Identifier 2018-NM-174-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-
200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747-8F, and
747-8 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded fore and aft
movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address uncommanded fore and aft movement of the
Captain's and First Officer's seats. An uncommanded fore or aft seat
movement during a critical part of a flight, such as takeoff or
landing, could cause a flight control obstruction or unintended
flight control input, which could result in the loss of the ability
to control the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Horizontal Actuator Identifications, Detailed
Inspection, and Repetitive Checks of Horizontal Movement System and On-
Condition Actions

    Except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1,
dated October 19, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as
``RC'' (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018.

(h) Seat Identification and On-Condition Actions

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
inspection of the nameplate on the Captain's and First Officer's
seats for the part number, and serial number as applicable, and do
all applicable on-condition actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 747-25-3644, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018. A review of
the airplane maintenance records may be used for the seat inspection
if the part number and serial number can be conclusively determined
from that review.

(i) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of
this AD: Where

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653, Revision 1,
dated October 19, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date
of this AD.''

(j) Terminating Action for Repetitive Actions for Certain Seats

    Installation of a serviceable Captain's or First Officer's seat
as specified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-
3653, Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018, terminates the repetitive
actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, for that seat only.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (ii) of
this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Brandon Lucero,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3644,
Revision 1, dated July 17, 2018.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3653,
Revision 1, dated October 19, 2018.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 20, 2019.
Dorr Anderson,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-26708 Filed 12-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74695-74696]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30315]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0059]
RIN 1218-AC51

Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of stakeholder meetings.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA invites interested parties to participate in informal
stakeholder meetings on preventing backover injuries and fatalities.
OSHA plans to use information gathered at these meetings to evaluate
backover risks across various industries, whether or how backovers may
be prevented by new technology or other methods, and how effective
those measures are.

DATES: Dates and locations for the stakeholder meetings are:
    1. January 8, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. and January 9, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in
Washington, DC.
    2. February 5, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. in
Arlington, TX.

ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are:
    1. Frances Perkins Building, Department of Labor, Room C-5515 1A &
1B for January 8 and Room C-5521 for January 9, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC.
    2. University of Texas at Arlington, OSHA Education Center,
Bluebonnet Ballroom in the University Center, 300 W. First St.,
Arlington, Texas.

I. Registration

    Submit your notice of intent to participate in one of the scheduled
meetings by one of the following:
     Electronic. Register at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/osha/register-osha-backover.htm Web site (follow the
instructions online).
     Facsimile. Fax your request to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, and label
it ``Attention: OSHA Backover Stakeholder Meeting Registration.''
     Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery,
and messenger service. Send your request to: Eastern Research Group,
Inc., 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421; Attention: OSHA
Backover Stakeholder Meeting Registration.
     Phone. Telephone registration number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Meetings

    Specific information on the schedule and location of each meeting
can be found on the Backover Web site of OSHA's contractor Eastern
Research Group at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/osha/register-osha-backover.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
     Press inquiries. Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA
Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
     General and technical information. Contact Meghan Smith,
OSHA Directorate of Construction, Room N-3467, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone:
(202) 693-2020.
     Copies of this Federal Register notice. Electronic copies
are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register
notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also
are available on the OSHA web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    BLS reported that 79 workers were killed in 2011 when backing
vehicles or mobile equipment, especially those with an obstructed view
to the rear, crushed them against an object and/or struck or rolled
over them. A search of OSHA's Integrated Management Information System
database identified 358 fatal backover incidents from 2005 to 2010. Of
these deaths, 216 occurred in general industry, shipyard employment,
maritime and agriculture industries, and 142 occurred in construction.
OSHA has also presented information on backover hazards on its Web
page: http://www.osha.gov/doc/topics/backover/index.html. While some
backover fatalities are caused by forklifts, the Agency is focusing on
vehicles with obstructed views to the rear. Because forklifts do not,
in general, have an obstructed view to the rear, the Agency is not
attempting to collect more information on forklifts and similar
equipment in the stakeholder meetings.
    OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) on backover hazards
in the Federal Register on March 29, 2012 (77 FR 18973). The RFI was
published jointly with a notice on hazards in Reinforced Concrete in
Construction. OSHA received comments from 32 individuals and
organizations, and these are available on www.regulations.gov under
docket OSHA-2010-0059.
    Many commercial or construction vehicles have audible alarms that
sound when the vehicle is put into reverse and backs up. OSHA has three
construction safety standards that require backup alarms or spotters
when backing a vehicle with an obstructed view to the rear: 29 CFR
Sec.  1926.601(b)(4) covers motor vehicles; Sec.  1926.602(a)(9)(ii)
covers material handling equipment; Sec.  1926.952(a)(3) covers
equipment used in power generation and transmission construction. For
general industry, Sec.  1910.269(p)(1)(ii) provides similar
requirements for vehicular equipment operated at off-highway jobsites.
    New technologies have been developed to address backing hazards,
including: Cameras and proximity sensing technology, such as radar and
sonar, and new types of audible alarms that focus the alarm's sound or
are combined with lights. In addition, internal traffic plans that
control the flow of traffic and limit backing can help prevent
backovers. The Agency is considering whether these technologies or
other approaches, including training for drivers and spotters, can
better address the risks of backing equipment

which have an obstructed view to the rear.

State Regulations: Virginia and Washington

    Washington and Virginia have their own state occupational safety
and health programs and have issued regulations designed to prevent
backover incidents. In Virginia, vehicles with an obstructed view to
the rear, whether used in construction or general industry, must have a
backup alarm audible above the surrounding noise level. The driver must
also have the assistance of a camera, work with a spotter, or
``visually determine that no employee is in the path of the vehicle''
prior to backing (16VAC25-97-30).
    The State of Washington's regulation is limited in scope to dump
trucks. Washington's rule requires ``an operable mechanical device that
provides the driver a full view behind the dump truck [to be] used,
such as a video camera,'' or spotters when using dump trucks when
people will be walking behind them (WAC 296-155-610(2)(f)).

II. Stakeholder Meetings

    Stakeholder meetings are meant to provide an opportunity for
affected employers and employees, as well as safety professionals and
equipment makers, to inform OSHA of the best means to address the risks
of backovers. The Agency is interested in collecting information for
all industries on:
     The risks of backovers;
     Current measures taken to address backover hazards;
     The effectiveness of those measures;
     Information about the number of vehicles or employees
affected; and
     The costs of protective measures.

III. Public Participation

    Each stakeholder meeting will have 15-20 active participants with
room for 20-30 observers. Meetings are expected to last about two
hours. Stakeholders may register as ``participants'' or ``observers.''
Participants will actively participate in discussions and present their
views and experience, while observers typically will not have an
opportunity to speak unless time permits at the end of the meeting.
Stakeholders may only register as participants in one of the two
sessions. Each meeting will have the same questions or agenda. If too
few stakeholders register for a particular session, the Agency will
eliminate that session and combine it with another and inform
registrants of the change. The meetings will be conducted as group
discussions, with individual stakeholders describing what occurs in
their business or industry with regard to backover hazards. To
facilitate as much group interaction as possible, formal presentations
will not be permitted.
    OSHA staff will be present to take part in the discussions.
Logistics for the meetings are being managed by Eastern Research Group
(ERG). Participants and observers must register to attend by contacting
ERG via one of the methods described at the beginning of this notice.
Participants and observers will be registered on a first-come, first-
serve basis. If there is room at the meeting, stakeholders or the
general public can attend as observers if they have not pre-registered.
Any changes to the schedule of meetings will be noted at the ERG Web
site.
    OSHA will have a facilitator at the stakeholder meetings to help
guide the discussion and record notes on flip charts. ERG provides a
summary of comments at the meeting which OSHA will place on the
backover Web page at http://www.osha.gov/doc/topics/backover/index.html. In order to encourage a free exchange of views,
information, and ideas, these notes will not identify the individuals
who make comments. ERG makes an audio recording of each session to
ensure that the summary notes are accurate, but these recordings will
not be transcribed or published. Although members of the press may
attend stakeholder meetings, the Agency asks them not to quote speakers
by name or affiliation in any published reports, as the intent of the
meeting is informational only. An example of stakeholder summary
comments can be found here: http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/pdf/Modernization_DC_5-25-10.pdf.

IV. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of David Michaels,
Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657), 29 CFR part 1911, and Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 12, 2012.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-30315 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


                                  Appendix A

   Annual Speciated Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States' Class I Areas

                                  Appendix B

Daily Speciated Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States' Class I Areas, 2006 through 2010

                                  Appendix C

    Press Releases: Georgia Power Company's 2013 Integrated Resource Plan

                                  Appendix D

Five-year Average Observed Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States' Class I Areas, 2004 through 2010, 20% Worst Days

                                  Appendix E

Five-year Average Observed Visibility Impairment in VISTAS States' Class I Areas, 2004 through 2010, 20% Best Days

                                  Appendix F

Point Source 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventory

                                  Appendix G

Area and Non-road Source 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventories

                                  Appendix H

On-Road Mobile 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventory
                                  Appendix I

Fire Source 2007 SEMAP Emissions Inventory

                                  Appendix J

 VISTAS States' EGU Emissions and Heat Inputs, 2002 through 2011 Appendix K

Federal Land Manager Consultation

                                  Appendix L

Responses to Comments on Prehearing Report


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59029-59030]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23537]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67892; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Maximum Term for LEAPS
to Fifteen Years

September 19, 2012.
    On July 24, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to increase the maximum term for
Long-Term Equity Options Series (``LEAPS'') to fifteen years. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 10, 2012.\3\ The Commission received one comment on the
proposed rule change and a response to the comment from CBOE.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67600 (August 6,
2012), 77 FR 47890.
    \4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from: Christopher Nagy, President, KOR Trading LLC, dated August 17,
2012; and Jenny Klebes-Golding, Senior Attorney, CBOE, dated
September 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is September 24, 2012. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposal, the comment received, and
CBOE's response to the comment. Currently, the maximum term for equity
and interest rate LEAPS is three years and the maximum term for index
LEAPS is five years. The proposal

would increase the maximum term for all LEAPS to fifteen years.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates November 8, 2012 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23537 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 93 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27619-27621]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0285]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that
governs the South Park Bridge, on the Duwamish Waterway, mile 3.8, at
Seattle, WA. Highway traffic patterns have changed since this rule was
last amended, therefore the bridge owner (King County) is proposing to
update the operating schedule to better meet the needs of local highway
users by matching drawbridge closure hours to current commuter traffic
patterns. This change would improve movement of rush hour highway
traffic while having minimal impact to maritime waterway traffic.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 13, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be received by
the Coast Guard on or before June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0285 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth
Coast Guard District Bridge Program Office, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
SDOT Seattle Department of Transportation

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this proposed rulemaking by
submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will
be posted, without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
proposed rulemaking (USCG-2015-0285), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We

recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can
contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0285] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0285) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request for a meeting that reaches the Coast Guard on or before June
15, 2015 using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please
explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 499, 33 CFR 1.05-1; and
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    King County owns and operates the South Park Bridge, and requested
a permanent change to the existing operating regulation. The new
proposed regulation would update drawbridge closure times to better
meet current highway traffic demands, and match the closure schedule
with the First Avenue South Bridge, mile 2.5, on the Duwamish Waterway.
    The South Park Bascule Bridge, at Seattle WA, on the Duwamish
Waterway at mile 3.8, is subject to tidal influence and has at least 15
feet of water depth at the bridge site at mean lower low water. Vessel
traffic on the Duwamish waterway consists of vessels ranging from small
pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing boats, and commercial
tug and tow, and mega yachts.
    The inefficiencies of the current drawbridge operating regulation
were brought to the Coast Guard's attention by the bridge owner. The
current drawbridge operating regulation was written to accommodate
commuter patterns associated with morning and afternoon highway traffic
associated with Boeing Plant number 2 shift changes. As of 2011 this
plant is no longer operational and therefore highway traffic densities
have changed. Adjusting the existing drawbridge regulation would better
meet the needs of current highway users by matching drawbridge closure
hours to the First Avenue South Bridge and current commuter traffic
patterns, while having minimal impact on maritime navigation.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard would amend the operating regulations at 33 CFR
117.1041(a)(2). The regulation currently states that South Park Bridge
need not be opened for the passage of vessels from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00
a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Coast Guard proposes to change the opening schedule such
that the bridge need not be opened for the passage of vessels from 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays other than Columbus Day. The purpose of this
proposed amendment is to increase efficiency for current highway
traffic demands in light of changed traffic patterns, and match the
closure schedule with the First Avenue South Bridge on the Duwamish
Waterway. All other requirements regarding the South Park Bridge under
33 CFR 117.1041 will remain the same.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard has made this
finding based on the fact that the proposed change does not
significantly alter the duration and time frame of the current closure
schedule.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect
the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The
owners or operators of commercial and recreational vessels looking to
transit the bridge and associated maritime waterfront facilities (e.g.,
marina, marine repair/construction businesses) beyond the bridge.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect twice a day for three hours when vessel traffic
is low and vehicle traffic is high. Vessels that can safely transit
under the bridge may do so at any time. Furthermore, most vessels that
would be affected by this proposed rule are already operating according
to the current restricted operating regulation for the First Avenue
South Bridge.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes (make
sure we send NPRM to local Tribe).

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply amends the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.1041, revise the section heading and paragraph (a)(2)
to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1041  Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish River;
Seattle, WA.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The draw of the South Park Bridge, mile 3.8, need not be opened
for the passage of vessels from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00
p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday except, Federal holidays,
other than Columbus Day.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 29, 2015.
R.T. Gromlich,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2015-11677 Filed 5-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 40170-40172]
[DOCID:fr23jy07-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0050]

Welding, Cutting and Brazing Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB
approval of the Information Collection requirement contained in the
Welding, Cutting and Brazing Standard (29 CFR 1910.255(e)). The
information collected is used by employers and employees whenever
welding, cutting and brazing are performed. The purpose of the
information is to ensure that employers evaluate hazards associated
with welding and ensure that adequate measures are taken to make the
process safe.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
September 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0050,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0050). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled Supplementary Information.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Section 1910.255(e) requires that a periodic inspection of
resistance welding equipment be made by qualified maintenance
personnel, and that a certification record be generated and maintained.
The certification shall include the date of the inspection, the
signature of the person who performed the inspection and the serial
number, or other identifier, for the equipment inspected. The record
shall be made available to an OSHA inspector upon request. The
maintenance inspection ensures that welding equipment is in safe
operating condition while the maintenance record provides evidence to
employees and Agency compliance officers that employers performed the
required inspections.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ICR does not account for the paperwork burden associated
with several provisions of the standard either because manufacturers
typically provide the required information (i.e., Sec. Sec.
1910.252(b)(2)(ii)(G), (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(1)(i)(C),
1910.253(b)(1)(ii), (d)(4)(ii), (d)(4)(iii), (e)(6)(iii), (f)(1)(i),
(g)(1)(ii), and 1910.254(b)(4)(iv)); the Agency believes that the
paperwork requirement was a usual and customary business practice
among the industry prior to publication of the standard (i.e.,
Sec. Sec.  1910.252(a)(2)(xiii)(D), (a)(2)(xiv)(D),
1910.253(b)(5)(iii)(G), (c)(3)(v), and (f)(7)(i)(A)); or the Agency
believes that the implied training provisions are performance-
oriented and, therefore, not subject to PRA-95 (i.e., Sec. Sec.
1910.252(a)(2)(xiii)(C) and 1910.253(a)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Welding, Cutting
and Brazing (29 CFR part 1910, subpart Q). The Agency is requesting to
reduce its current burden hour estimate associated with this Standard
from 6,588 to 5,994 hours for a total reduction of 594 hours. The
Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice
and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Welding, Cutting and Brazing (29 CFR part 1910, subpart Q).
    OMB Number: 1218-0207.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 21,373.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time Per Response: Varies from 1 minute (.02 hour) to
maintain the inspection certification record to 7 minutes (.12 hour) to
perform the inspection and to generate and maintain the inspection
certification record.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5,994.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0050). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access

the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available
through the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 16, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-14109 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P