[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41879-41881]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0161]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 13 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0161 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 13 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Joseph E. Brunette

    Mr. Brunette, age 43, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye
since 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye is light perception
only, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Joseph Brunette has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brunette reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 7 years, accumulating 560,000 miles. He holds
a Class A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from California. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash, which he was not
cited for, and one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the
speed limit by 5 mph.

William C. Christy

    Mr. Christy, 68, has had acute zonal occult outer retinopathy and a
central scotoma in his right eye since 2007. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, ``It is my
opinion based on my exam of Mr. Christy, his visual field testing and
his driving history that he is safe to drive a commercial vehicle
without restriction.'' Mr. Christy reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 46 years, accumulating 46,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 46 years, accumulating 552,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Anthony A. Gibson, Jr.

    Mr. Gibson, 51, has had an enucleation of his left eye since 1992.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15. Following
an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted, ``I believe Tony has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Gibson reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 11 years, accumulating 330,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 20 years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rickey W. Goins

    Mr. Goins, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``It is my professional opinion that Mr. Goins has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Goins reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5
years, accumulating 260,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
11 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Tennessee. His driving record for the last 3 years

shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael J. Hoffarth

    Mr. Hoffarth, 37, has had atrophic scarring in the macula of his
right eye since 2000. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012,
his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, I certify that Michael
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hoffarth reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 1 year, accumulating 30,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 1 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes but one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he
exceeded the speed limit by 11 mph.

Boyd M. Kinzer, Jr.

    Mr. Kinzer, 62, has had macular scarring in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1994. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Kinzer
has the visual ability necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Kinzer reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years,
accumulating 27,000 miles, and buses for 1 year, accumulating 9,000
miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Tennessee. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows two crashes, which he was not
cited for, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jason N. Moore

    Mr. Moore, 34, has had amblyopia and strabismus in his left eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion, he is visually capable of safely operating a
commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Moore reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 328,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes but one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded
the speed limit by 15 mph.

Dennis M. Rubeck

    Mr. Rubeck, 65, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic accident sustained during childhood. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15. Following an examination in
2012, his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion Dennis Mark Rubeck
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rubeck reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 12 years, accumulating 720,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 18 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Wyoming. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Leon F. Stephens

    Mr. Stephens, 61, has had macular scarring in his left eye since
1984. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and
in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Stephens has adequate vision to
safely perform the task of driving and operating a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Stephens reported that he has driven straight trucks for
6 years, accumulating 60,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 42 years, accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Clayton L. Schroeder

    Mr. Schroeder, 62, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, light perception only. Following an examination in 2011, his
optometrist noted, ``I believe, in my professional opinion, that Mr.
Schroeder has adequate vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Schroeder reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
12 years, accumulating 900,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes but
one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he failed to obey a
traffic sign.

James C. Sharp

    Mr. Sharp, 51, has had corneal scarring in his left eye since 1990.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, ``I,
Thomas A. Armstrong, M.D., certify that in my medical opinion, Mr.
James C. Sharp does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Sharp reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 5,000 miles. He
holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald J. VanHoof

    Mr. VanHoof, 60, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
central retinal vein occlusion that occurred in 2001. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
count fingers vision. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``His visual condition is stable, and in my medical opinion has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. VanHoof reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 43 years, accumulating 3.2 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Scott C. Westphal

    Mr. Westphal, 31, has macular scarring in his right eye due to a
traumatic accident sustained in childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is hand motion vision, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In summary, it is my
medical opinion that Scott is able to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle based on the visual
requirements.'' Mr. Westphal reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 12 years, accumulating 960,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business August 15, 2012. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: July 9, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-17267 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 40920]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0019]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Customer/Partner
Service Surveys

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by August
11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0360.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Customer/Partner Service Surveys (OMB Control Number 0910-0360)-
Extension

    Under section 903 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 393), FDA is authorized to conduct research and public
information programs about regulated products and responsibilities of
the agency. Executive Order 12862, entitled, ``Setting Customer Service
Standard,'' directs Federal agencies that ``provide significant
services directly to the public'' to ``survey customers to determine
the kind and quality of services they want and their level of
satisfaction with existing services.'' FDA is seeking OMB clearance to
conduct a series of surveys to implement Executive Order 12862.
Participation in the surveys is voluntary. This request covers
customer/partner service surveys of regulated entities, such as food
processors; cosmetic drug, biologic and medical device manufacturers;
consumers; and health professionals. The request also covers
``partner'' (State and local governments) customer service surveys.
    FDA will use the information from these surveys to identify
strengths and weaknesses in service to customers/partners and to make
improvements. The surveys will measure timeliness, appropriateness and
accuracy of information, courtesy and problem resolution in the context
of individual programs.
    FDA estimates conducting 15 customer/partner service surveys per
year, each requiring an average of 15 minutes for review and
completion. We estimate respondents to these surveys to be between 100
and 10,000 customers. Some of these surveys will be repeats of earlier
surveys for purposes of monitoring customer/partner service and
developing long-term data.
    In the Federal Register of January 13, 2011 (76 FR 2395), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received on the information
collection.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           Type of survey                               Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail, telephone, web-based.........................................          20,000                1           20,000   0.25 (15 min.)            5,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-17416 Filed 7-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA / Office of Air and Radiation / Immediate Office 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060  0306 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Clean Air Act Tribal Authority ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) ICR#: 1676.04 9. Keywords Tribal Authority, Clean Air Act, eligibility determination, burden hours, costs, air pollution, environmental protection 10. Abstract This ICR requests clearance of EPA's review and approval process for determining Tribe eligibility to carry out the Clean Air ( CAA). Tribes may choose to submit a CAA eligibility determination and a CAA program application to EPA at the same time for approval and EPA will review both submittals simultaneously. EPA will use this information to determine if a Tribe meets the statutory criteria under section 301( d) of the CAA and is qualified for purposes of implementing an Air Quality Program. Section 114 of the CAA is the authority for the collection of information.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 27 b. Total annual responses 9 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 360 d. Current OMB inventory 293 e. Difference 67 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 67 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. Application for benefits e. _ P_ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) One time application 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Darrel Harmon Phone: 202 564 7416 OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35035-35036]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13838]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0378; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-050-AD;
Amendment 39-17868; AD 2014-12-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta
S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters with a certain
rotor brake pinion installed. This AD requires inspecting the rotor
brake pinion for a crack, and replacing it if there is a crack. This AD
is prompted by a report of a rotor brake pinion failure. These actions
are intended to detect a crack on the rotor brake pinion and prevent
failure of the rotor brake pinion, which could lead to detachment of
parts inside the transmission and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 7, 2014.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 18, 2014.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact
AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015
Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-
664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

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

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    This AD is prompted by AD No. 2013-0187, dated August 16, 2013 (AD
2013-0187), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Agusta
Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters. EASA advises of a report of a
cracked pinion, part number (P/N) 412-040-301-101, installed in the
rotor brake quill, P/N 412-040-123-103, on an AB412 helicopter. EASA
states that the crack was discovered by a magnetic particle inspection
during a scheduled overhaul of the rotor brake quill. EASA further
states that an investigation revealed the crack was due to residual
stress generated during the manufacturing process, and that this
condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the
pinion with detachment of parts inside the transmission that could
cause its malfunction or jamming, finally resulting in loss of control
of the helicopter. To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2013-0187
requires magnetic particle inspecting the rotor brake pinion, and if
there is a crack, replacing the rotor brake pinion.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-135, Revision A, dated
July 29, 2013, which describes procedures for a one-time magnetic
particle inspection of the rotor brake pinion, P/N 412-040-

301-101, installed on Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 100 hours time-in-service, magnetic
particle inspecting the rotor brake pinion, P/N 412-040-301-101, for a
crack. If there is a crack, this AD requires replacing the pinion
before further flight.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD does not apply to pinions installed in a rotor brake
quill assembly that has been overhauled, while this AD does.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no
helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S.
Registry. Therefore, we believe it is unlikely that we will receive any
adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S.
operators.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary because there are
none of these products on the U.S. Registry and that good cause exists
for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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):

2014-12-07 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-17868; Docket No. FAA-2014-
0378; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-050-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB412 and
AB412EP helicopters with a rotor brake pinion, part number 412-040-
301-101, installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a rotor brake
pinion. This condition could result in failure of a rotor brake
pinion, detachment of parts inside the transmission causing a
malfunction or jamming, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 7, 2014.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    Within 100 hours time-in-service, magnetic particle inspect each
rotor brake pinion for a crack. If there is a crack, before further
flight, replace the rotor brake pinion.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(g) Additional Information

    (1) AgustaWestland Bollettino Tecnico No. 412-135, Revision A,
dated July 29, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference,
contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For
service information identified in this AD, contact AgustaWestland,
Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015 Lonate
Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-
664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review a copy of the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0187, dated August 16, 2013. You
may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FAA-2014-0378.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6321: Main Rotor
Brake.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 6, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-13838 Filed 6-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13578-13581]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04724]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 46 / Monday, March 9, 2020 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0197; Product Identifier 2019-NM-200-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-25-16, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter,
A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series
airplanes. AD 2017-25-16 requires repetitive inspections of certain
fuel pumps for cavitation erosion, corrective action if necessary, and
revision of the minimum equipment list (MEL). Since the FAA issued AD
2017-25-16, the FAA has determined that the inspection area must be
expanded, and Model A330-941 airplanes are also subject to the unsafe
condition. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2017-
25-16, expand the inspection area, add certain maintenance actions, and
expand the applicability, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0197.

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-2020-
0197; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0197;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-200-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2017-25-16, Amendment 39-19130 (82 FR 58718,
December 14, 2017) (``AD 2017-25-16''), which applied to all Airbus SAS
Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-
500 and A340-600 series airplanes. The FAA issued AD 2017-25-16 to
address cavitation erosion of certain fuel pumps, which could result,
if the pump is running dry, in an ignition source in the fuel tank and
consequent fuel tank explosion.

Actions Since AD 2017-25-16 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2017-25-16, the FAA has determined that AD
2017-25-16 must be superseded for the following reasons:
     The inspection area must be expanded to include location
B, the collector cell, which is subject to the unsafe condition.
     Certain maintenance actions related to defueling and
ground fuel transfer operations are also necessary for all affected
airplanes.
     Model A330-941 airplanes, which were not in production at
the time AD 2017-25-16 was issued, are also subject to the unsafe
condition. The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States
of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0291, dated November 29,
2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0291'') (also referred to as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200,
A330-300, A330-900, A340-200, and A340-300 series, and A340-541, -542,
-642, and -643 airplanes. EASA AD 2019-0291 supersedes EASA AD 2017-
0224 (which corresponds to FAA AD

2017-25-16). Model A340-542 and -643 airplanes are not certified by the
FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this
AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a fuel pump showing
cavitation erosion that breached the fuel pump housing through the
inlet webs and exposed the fuel pump power supply wires, and by new
findings that suggest the need to expand the inspection area and the
applicability. The FAA is proposing this AD to address fuel pump
erosion caused by cavitation. If this condition is not addressed, a
pump running dry could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent
loss of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2017-25-16, this proposed AD would retain most of
the requirements of AD 2017-25-16. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2019-0291, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD. The reporting requirement in AD 2017-25-16 is not
included in this proposed AD.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0291 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
of all affected parts, replacement if necessary, updating of the
applicable Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL), and certain
maintenance actions related to defueling and ground fuel transfer
operations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0291 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0291
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2019-0291 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2019-0291 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-
0291 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0197 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this proposed AD interim action. The manufacturer
is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 107 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2017-25-  Up to 4 work-hours               $0  Up to $340.........  Up to $36,380.
 16.                                x $85 per hour =
                                    Up to $340.
New proposed actions.............  Up to 68 work-hours              $0  Up to $5,780.......  Up to $618,460.
                                    x $85 per hour =
                                    Up to $5,780.
MEL revision.....................  1 workhour x $85 =               $0  $85................  $9,095.
                                    $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 126 work-hours x $85 per    Up to $173,680....  Up to $184,390.
 hour = Up to $10,710.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-25-16, Amendment 39-19130 (82 FR 58718, December 14, 2017) (``AD
2017-25-16''), and adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-0197; Product Identifier 2019-NM-
200-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by April 23, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-25-16, Amendment 39-19130 (82 FR 58718,
December 14, 2017) (``AD 2017-25-16'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes, certificated in any
category, and identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this
AD.
    (1) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
    (2) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
    (3) Model A330-941 airplanes.
    (4) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes.
    (5) Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
    (6) Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes.
    (7) Model A340-541 airplanes.
    (8) Model A340-642 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of a fuel pump showing
cavitation erosion that exposed the fuel pump power supply wires,
and by new findings that suggest the need to expand the inspection
area and the applicability. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
fuel pump erosion caused by cavitation. If this condition is not
addressed, a pump running dry could result in a fuel tank explosion
and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0291, dated November 29, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0291'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0291

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0291 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0291 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2019-0291 refers to the master minimum
equipment list (MMEL), this AD refers to the operator's minimum
equipment list (MEL).
    (4) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2019-0291 specifies a
compliance time of ``Before an affected part exceeds 10,000 flight
hours (FH) since first installation on an aeroplane,'' for this AD
the compliance time is ``Before an affected pump exceeds 10,000
flight hours since first installation on an airplane, or the
applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this AD,
whichever occurs later.''
    (i) For a center tank, rear center tank, or aft transfer fuel
pump: Within 30 days after December 29, 2017 (the effective date of
AD 2017-25-16).
    (ii) For a stand-by fuel pump: Within 40 days after December 29,
2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-25-16).
    (5) Where EASA AD 2019-0291 refers to the ``effective date of
EASA AD 2017-0224,'' this AD requires using ``December 29, 2017 (the
effective date of AD 2017-25-16).''

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-25-16 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2019-0291 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0291 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0291, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA, 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. This material may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0197.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on March 1, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-04724 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Cook, L. M., 1980, The Uranium District of the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain in Natural Radiation Environment III, Vol. 2, U. S. Department of Energy, Symposium Proceedings, April 23 28, 1978. Thomas F. Gesell and Wayne M. Lowder, eds. CONF 780422 ( Vol. 2.). Technical Information Center, U. S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. p. 1609.

" Numerous measurements have been made in the uranium district to determine radiation levels and radioactivity content of waters and soils. In many instances, however, background levels unaffected by technology have been impossible to measure since the need to take these did not arise until it was suspected that problems had developed. The initial radiation levels on the surface near the first mines must have been high, since the deposits were on the surface. Radiation levels on the surface on unmined ground adjacent to the Korzekwa No. 1 mine exceed 200mR/ hr today. Other areas on the outcrop of the Deweesville sandstone near the Luckett mine are somewhat elevated also with readings of 20 to 30mR/ hr common."


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71373-71375]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0494; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-20-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines V2500-A1,
V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5,
V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500-A1, V2522-A5, V2524-A5,
V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, and
V2533-A5 turbofan engines. This proposed AD would require initial and
repetitive 360[deg] borescope inspections of high-pressure turbine
(HPT) stage 1 blade outer air seal segments for evidence of certain
distress conditions. This proposed AD would also require incorporation
of improved durability stage 1 blade outer air seal segments at the
next exposure to the HPT module subassembly, as terminating action to
the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD results from three reports
received of HPT case burn-through events, numerous shop reports of loss
of stage 1 blade outer air seal segments, and HPT case bulging. We are
proposing this AD to prevent HPT case burn-through, uncontrolled under-
cowl engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by January 24,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 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 International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East
Hartford, CT 06108; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
a copy of the service information identified in this proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlos Fernandes, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 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-2010-0494; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NE-20-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

    Since August 2006 we have received three reports of IAE V2500
series engines experiencing HPT case burn-through events. There have
also been numerous shop reports of loss of stage 1 blade outer air seal
segments, and reports of HPT case bulging. Investigation revealed the
cause to be due to HPT stage 1 blade outer air seal distress. Distress
initially starts with surface erosion and cracking of the blade outer
air seal segments. Continued engine operation then leads to burn-
through, radial bowing of the segments into the gas path, contact with
the HPT stage 1 blades, and loss of the segments from the HPT case.
This condition, if not corrected, could then result in HPT case burn-
through, uncontrolled under-cowl engine fire, and damage to the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of IAE Service
Bulletin (SB) No. V2500-ENG-72-0580, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010,
that describes procedures for initial and repetitive 360[deg] borescope
inspections of stage 1 blade outer air seal segments for evidence of
distress. We have also reviewed and approved IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-
0483, Revision 3, dated January 7, 2009, and IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-
0542, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2009, which incorporate improved
durability stage 1 blade outer air seal segments.

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 360[deg] borescope inspections of HPT stage 1
blade outer air seal segments for evidence of distress. This proposed
AD would also require incorporation of improved design stage 1 blade
outer air seal segments at the next exposure to the HPT module
subassembly. The proposed AD would require you to use the service
information described previously to perform these actions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 34 V2500 A1 series
and 510 V2500 A5/D5 series engines installed on airplanes of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per
engine to perform one proposed inspection, about 3 work-hours per
engine to install the improved durability stage 1 blade outer air seal
segments, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Required parts would cost about $150,882 (V2500 A1 series) and $155,195
(V2500 A5/D5 series), per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate
the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $84,556,878.

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. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    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 adding the following new
airworthiness directive:

International Aero Engines: Docket No. FAA-2010-0494; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NE-20-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by January 24,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500-
A1, V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5,
V2528-D5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines. These engines are
installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A319, A320, A321, and
McDonnell Douglas MD-90 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from three reports received of high-pressure
turbine (HPT) case burn-through events. There have also been
numerous shop reports of loss of stage 1 blade outer air seal
segments, and HPT case bulging. We are issuing this AD to prevent
HPT case burn-through, uncontrolled under-cowl engine fire, 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) For engines that have incorporated IAE Service Bulletin (SB)
No. V2500-ENG-72-0483, Revision 3 or earlier, or IAE SB No. V2500-
ENG-72-0542, Revision 1 or earlier, no further action is required.

Borescope Inspections

    (g) Perform 360[deg] borescope inspections of the HPT stage 1
blade outer air seal segments for evidence of the distress
conditions listed in Appendix D of IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-0580,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010.
    (1) For V2525-D5 and V2528-D5 turbofan engines:
    (i) Inspect within 1,000 operating hours after the engine meets
all criteria as defined in Table 1 of this AD, or within 600
operating hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is
greater.
    (ii) Thereafter, re-inspect within every 1,000 operating hours
or as defined in Appendix D of IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-0580,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, whichever is less.
    (iii) Use Accomplishment Instructions paragraphs 3.B.(1) through
3.B.(3), and Appendices A through D of IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-0580,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, to do these inspections.
    (2) For V2500-A1, V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5,
V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines:
    (i) Inspect within 1,200 operating hours after the engine meets
all criteria as defined in Table 1 of this AD, or within 600
operating hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever is
greater.
    (ii) Thereafter, re-inspect within every 1,200 operating hours
or as defined in Appendix D of IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-0580,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, whichever is less.
    (iii) Use Accomplishment Instructions paragraphs 3.A.(1) through
3.A.(3), and Appendices A through D of IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-0580,
Revision 2, dated August 12, 2010, to do these inspections.

                  Table 1--Stage 1 Blade Outer Air Seal Segment Inspection Compliance Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Stage 1 blade      Stage 1 blade
                                                           outer air seal     outer air seal      Exhaust gas
                                                          segments hours-    segments cycles-     temperature
                      Engine model                          since-new or       since-new or      margin degrees
                                                         since-last-repair  since-last-repair    celsius (less
                                                           (greater than)     (greater than)         than)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1.....................................................              6,000              3,800                 45
A5.....................................................              6,000              3,500                 45
D5.....................................................              5,000              3,500                 45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (h) Exhaust Gas Temperature Margin is defined as the expected
margin during a sea-level takeoff on a 30-degree Celsius Outside Air
Temperature Day.

Terminating Action

    (i) As terminating action to the repetitive 360[deg] borescope
inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(2)(ii) above,
install improved durability stage 1 blade outer air seal segments at
the next HPT module subassembly exposure.
    (1) For V2500-A1 turbofan engines, use paragraphs 1.B.,
Concurrent Requirements, and paragraphs 3.(1) through 3.(2)(b) of
the Accomplishment Instructions of IAE SB No. V2500-ENG-72-0542,
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2009, to do the installation.
    (2) For V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2525-D5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5,
V2527M-A5, V2528-D5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 turbofan engines, use
paragraphs 1.B., Concurrent Requirements, and paragraphs 3.(1)
through 3.(2)(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions of IAE SB No.
V2500-ENG-72-0483, Revision 3, dated January 7, 2009, to do the
installation.
    (3) Both IAE SBs No. V2500-ENG-72-0542, Revision 1, and SB No.
V2500-ENG-72-0483, Revision 3, require modification of the stage 1
HPT support assembly before installing the new blade outer air seal
segments. You must complete the modification using those SBs, as
applicable to the appropriate engine model, to properly perform the
mandatory terminating action of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (j) 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.

Related Information

    (k) Contact Carlos Fernandes, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.
    (l) Contact International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East
Hartford, CT 06108; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of the service information referenced in this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 16, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-29450 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


03/ 08/ 2003 The questions and answers are arranged in four categories:

0 General Implementation of the Data Standard 0 Use of the Data Standard Technical Questions for Implementers General Questions:

Q1: A: What is the Permitting Data Standard? A " data standard" is a documented agreement among organizations that share or exchange data regarding representation, formats, and definitions for such data. The Permitting Data Standard provides a common vocabulary to be used by EPA, States, Tribes, and local govement agencies that want to share data about environmental permitting activities. The Data Standard is made up of a list of data elements, each of which is defined. Relationships or linkages among data elements ( both within the Permitting Data Standard and between it and other data standards) are also identified. I Q2: A: Why was the Permitting Data Standard revised? The Permitting Data Standard was revised to broaden the scope of the standard, to better address the full life cycle of the permitting process, and to more comprehensively represent the complexity of multimedia permitting programs. The initial Permit Data Standard Action Team in 2001 decided to develop a simple, high level standard that includes core data  information sufficient to identify a permit, as well as some information on administrative status and history  that is common across most organizations and programs. While programs may have the need to exchange more program specific information relating to permits, the EDSC decided that the original standard should be expanded prior to developing program specific standards to avoid duplicating similar information.

Q3: A: What changes were made to the Permitting Data Standard? Minor changes were made to the definition and relationship portions of the standard, and additional data elements and definitions were added to the standard to better characterize facility/ feature characteristics, permit conditions, and control methodology information. A number of contact related data elements that were originally part of the Permitti the Contact Data Standard that w identified a distinction be are sufficiently similar to captured in the revised definition of " permit" which appears in QlO.

The standard refers to " relationships" with other standards, such as the Facility Identifier and Chemical ID standards. Does this mean that these other standards are included in the Permitting Standard? How would this work in practice? A: Because environmental business enforcement actions against org areas are also interrelated. For ex information ( defied in the Fac parameters ( defied in the C reinvent or duplicate these e and refers to other standard Standard have been removed because they are contained in approved. In addition, the permitting 11 Action Team en permits, licenses, and certifications and believes that permits and licenses considered together where as certifications do not. This clarification is Q4:

errelated ( e. g. facilities have permits, agencies take core information that is part of a permit includes facility own facilities and have permits.. .), the standards for these on standard) and information about chemical and biological ion and Biological Taxonomy standards). Rather than Action Team has identified some of these relationships Q5: A:

Q6: A: The way in which such a relationship would be applied is best understood in the context of a " transaction" or exchange of data. Simple incorporation of existing standards, such as the Date Data Standard, is straightforward; one simply uses the prescribed format for the data element in the exchange e necessary to link two or covered by its own Stan distinct records ( e. g., Permit itting a set of permit records from one organization to another using common sheet or fixed for e), it would be necessary to include to which the permit is issued ( this anying facility file, consistent with the Facility ID standard. If Facility ID, or other information). Additional facility that information, the unique facility mical or biological parameters d in analogous fashion.

Standard is this aother federal mandate? e. The decision to develop Data Standards, including the ointly by EPA and the States ( through The Environmental Council ation that represents the heads of the state environmental agencies). All anging accurate data is important and will remain so. All recognized s and deserves to have access to compilations of current data about . Together, they established the Environmental Data Standards ide the process. Action Teams are established to develop data made of representatives from EPA and the States and are co

data elements? There are many different environmental programs, and many different government agencies involved in environmental permitting. Often, these different programs or different permitting agencies use different names to describ of a permit. In other instances, activities or instruments with the same or similar names are te different. For example, different state agencies may use terms such PDES permit or NPDES permit to refer to similar things  permits rovisions of the Federal Clean Water Act ( and equivalent state enabling ging to waters of the United States.

If data from different programs and different agencies are to be shared, it is important that we identify uniformity, regardless of what they are called or named by the source of the data. In other words, we need to make sure thht apples are compared to apples, even if we know that some are " Golden Delicious" and some are " Granny Smith."

Implementation of the Data Standard:

Q7: A:

QS: A: Will my agency ( or my program) be required to use the Permitting Data Standard? No State, Tribal or local government agency or program is required to adopt or use the Permitting Data Standard, nor to incorporate it into that agency's or program's own data systems. However, once EPA and state agencies adopt and begin implementing the Data Standard, it will likely become the specified " road map" for communications among environmental agencies exchanging environmental permit information.

When is the Permitting Data Standard anticipated to be approved by ECOS and EPA? The Permitting Data Standard was approved by the EDSC in December 2001 and by the EPA in April 2 Q9:

A: ~

I I Q10:

A:

Q11:

A:

Q12:

A:

Q13:

A:

Q14: the revisions to the Permitting Data Standard will be completed 003 by the EDSC.

g Data Standard. What will I a elements that were in the pr captured under another d a number of facilities and other entities that have licenses or authorizations,

control document used to implement the ents not specifically called permits, but gulated or are of interest to ment agencies. For example, the current definition would not include TRI work for exchanging information about this broader set of regulated entities.

Can some programs within a State, Tribe or local government follow the Permitting Data Standard, while others do not? Use of the Permitting Data Standard is not required, although over time it may become the standard for sharing or exchanging data with EPA national data systems through the Exchange Network, as well as between state agencies. See Question 19 for additional information on the Exchange Network. State, tribal or local government programs especially those that d not exchange data with EPA, other Federal agencies or agencies in other states are mainly not obliged to adopt or work within the Permitting Data Standard. However, as it becomes a widely accepted standard, they may find it useful to use it in data management and exchange.

I am from a State, Tribal or local government agency. My program doesn't use the same data elements that are used in the Permitting Data Standard. Is there an expectation that we will change our data elements? No. The Data Standard uses terminology intended for data exchange and is applicable. only when the data that is sent crosses the threshold of your organization. Similar data that are exchanged will need to map to existing data holdings or conform in definition, meaning, and format to the Standard.

My EPA program doesn't use the same terms as are used in the Permitting Data Standard. Is there an expectation that we will change our terminology to match the standard? Although the Data St9dard is intended for use in data exchange, it is expected that EPA programs will, as necessary ( and over time), modify the data elements that they currently collect to conform to the data elements and terms in the Permitting Data Standard. The schedule for these changes will be addressed in the Business Rules that provide implementation guidelines specific to the Agency.

Is the Permitting Data Standard the basis for a new data system design? Will we have to change our existing data system to conform to it?

\

3 A: agencies is No. The Permitting Data Standard is or authorizations " mapped" to the correct ose to use this Data Stan Q15: We are pl data system( s). Can the A: or agency is planning to update its existing data system( s), the us in this effort?

a useful, peer reviewed template for the kinds of data that current good Q16: Are there any federal funds available to help States, Tribes, or local government agencies that ey choose to update their systems to enable them to communicate Data Standard? linked directly to the Permitting Standard development effort. EPA assistance has often been used by grantees to help develop and update A: Yes, although funding to assist other levels of government that implement federal environmental programs. data management systems.

Q17:

A: There are a number of data elements listed in the Permitting Data Standard that we don't currently record or track in our own data system. Will we now be required to do so? No. The presence of a given data element in the Permitting , Data Standard does not create a new data collection requirement. State, Tribal, and local government systems do not need to begin collecting all data for which there are data elements in the Data Standard.

Q18:

A: I currently provide a large amount of permitting data to EPA from my State ( or Tribal or local governmental) agency. What does the Permitting Data Standard mean for that exchange? In the short term, probably very little. However, as States and EPA modernize their systems and work towards improved and integrated data exchange tools ( see " Network" Question, below) this Data Standard will be used as the basis for new data exchanges. State and EPA data flows are governed by a complex set of mandates and agreements that this Data Standard will not change. Instead, this Data Standard is intended to serve as a tool to better facilitate State and EPA data flows. As EPA implements this Data Standard it will influence the data EPA seeks from States and the way in which those data are to be transmitted.

Q19:

A: What does this standard have to do with the Exchange Network? I thought everything was supposed to be in XML. Is this XML? The Network concept relies upon common " Data Exchange Templates" ( DETs) expressed in " XML," and exchanged based on common protocols. This Data Standard would be used as the starting point or " core" contents for DETs that contain permit information. Once established and approved, these flows would replace existing feeds to EPA's national data systems. For example, several states have used a DET based on the State/ EPA Facility Identification Standard to exchange facility data with EPA and other States, using N and will be available Data Standard.

If the data elements in the Permitting Data Standard don't fit my program, but I have to use it rotocols. The XML expression of this Data Standard is under development . From that point forward, a new DET for Permit would be based on this Q20:

4 confusion? A:

e levels, and the team ensure that this standard is useful and provides Use of the Data Standard:

Q21: A: Who will use the Permitting Data Standard? All Federal, State, Tribal and local government agencies involved in issuing or managing environmental permits or authorizations, or who manage permitting data, are encouraged to use the Permitting Data Standard when and if they share or exchange data with other agencies. They are also encouraged to refer Data Standard and use it as a tool, if they are planning to update or enhance their own ms. The public will be the ultimate user of the Data Standard because it will promote data in which they are interested and that they request through data queries, etc.

Q22: A: Will EPA be issuing rules for use of the Permitting Data Standard? No, at least not in the sense of issuing formal regulations. Information on the standard will be available through the EDSC website and the Environmental Data Registry ( EDR).

Will the Permitting Data Standard be open for revision in the future? How will the Standard be maintained? Yes. There is every reason to expect that future adjustments or revisions will be necessary. The need for revisions may arise in at least two areas: ( 1) Environmental programs evolve, and new programs may be added. This will necessitate, at a minimum, revisions and additions to the lists of Permissible Values associated with certain data elements. ( 2) Once in use, we may discover flaws in the Data Standard that need to be corrected ( e. g., linkages and relationships that need to be adjusted; additional levels of detail that should be provided, etc.) EPA and ECOS expect to maintain an ongoing institutional mechanism to make needed future revisions. Q23:

A:

Technical Questions  or Implementers:

Q24:

A: Why isn't the Permit Numberndentifier sufficient to identify a permit uniquely? Why does this matter? Unique identification of a permit is important because it allows one permit to be positively identified and distinguished from all others ( even those that may have similar names, etc.) One of the objectives of this Permitting Data Standard is to provide a means of uniquely identifying permits across agencies, programs and levels of government, so that information can be exchanged without confusion. Permit identifiers issued by permitting agencies are typically unique within a program, but not necessarily within an agency. There is typically no assurance that one state's identifying numbers are different from another's. For this reason, the EPA Business Rules, which represent a specific Agency implementation of the Standard, specify a combination of data elements ( Permit Numberhde Organization and Permit Type) that will provide unique identification Q25: A: Do all permits have " permitted features?" The permitted feature group of data elements includes information about a permitted feature of a permit. Most` permitted entities will have at 1 outfall. The standard also allows le permitted features for more complex facilities. In some cases, a facility ( or other permitted entity) may have no specific permitted features but nevertheless be ne " permitted feature," such as a stack, storage unit, or 5 subject to general re practices. In such a Do we need to use the Permissible Values from the Data Standard? ements such as reporting, personnel training, , the standard allows the flexibility not to spec1  wide best management permitted features.

Q26: A: s, and text that can be used in exchanging permissible values ( e. g., Part A), agencies using iate even if the a Q27:

A: What if I wish to exchange information that isn't covered by the listed Permissible Values? Does ieves that the Permitting Data Standard will be appropriate for exchanging range of permits, licenses and authorizations at the Federal, State, Tribal and The Team developed proposed Permissible Values for widely used major er Federal environmental laws. The Team anticipates that users exchanging s beyond those listed will work out additional permissible values in the hanges among specific data exchange partners. The Team is interested in of such a " partially managed" set of permissible values. The Team also be desirable to develop more extensive lists of permissible values es such as solid waste landfill permits common to many state, tribal Q28:

A: This Standard Do data elements in our application systems need to be the same data type as the Standard Data Element? What i At times, differences between system parameters and Data Standard specifications may require some translation from accommodate th conducted to date. If a system has a longer value for a given element and the organization wishes to exchange data using the standard, the value exported from the system would have to be adjusted ( e. g. truncated or abbreviated). Field lengths in the standard can be increased if partner needs require this, through the maintenance review of the standard. Data Element field lengths are longer or shorter than the standard? ifies how information will be exchanged, not how systems should be designed.

that uses field lengths, etc. Field lengths in the standard are intended to ted maximum length of the values across partner systems based on analysis Q29:

A: Does the draft standard allow the tracking of off site waste disposal that may be generated by a permitted entity? Yes. The draft standard provides for this by first identifying the substance ( e. g., sludge) or other material by using the FaciZity/ Feature Characteristic Name. How the permitted facility manages that material ( e. g., land application) can be indicated by using Methodology Type. Capturing the off site location of the land application can be done by using Methodology Description, which is sufficiently flexible with a complementary format that is large enough to allow location descriptions. However, the Latitudenongitude Data Standard should be used for defming point locations, and the Facilitj? Zdentijication Data Standard should be used if applicable. ,

6