[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10112-10115]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0143; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01401-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and -402
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a certain bolt
at the pivot pin link being found missing or having stress corrosion
cracking. This proposed AD would require a modification to the nose
landing gear (NLG) shock strut assembly. 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 11,
2022.

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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Q-Series

Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]; internet https://dehavilland.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0143; 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, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antariksh Shetty, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

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 ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0143; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-01401-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Antariksh Shetty, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section,
FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2009-29R4, dated October 1,
2021 (TCCA AD CF-2009-29R4) (also referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in
the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0143.
    The FAA issued AD 2021-25-12, Amendment 39-21856 (86 FR 72174,
December 21, 2021) (AD 2021-25-12), for certain De Havilland Aircraft
of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. AD 2021-25-12
requires repetitive lubrications of the trailing arm of the NLG, which
include a general visual inspection of the NLG pivot pin mechanism for
discrepancies and replacement of missing or damaged bolts. AD 2021-25-
12 also requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program to include new and revised airworthiness limitations (life
limits for certain bolts). AD 2021-25-12 corresponds to TCCA AD CF-
2009-29R4, except AD 2021-25-12 does not include the modification to
the NLG shock strut assembly specified in Part I of TCCA AD CF-2009-
29R4. AD 2021-25-12 explained that the FAA was considering further
rulemaking to require the modification. The FAA has now determined that
further rulemaking is necessary, and this proposed AD follows from that
determination.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address failure of the pivot pin
retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control or
loss of an NLG tire during takeoff or landing, which could lead to
runway excursions. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2021-25-12

    This NPRM does not propose to supersede AD 2021-25-12. Rather, the
FAA has determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate.
This proposed AD would require the modification specified in Part I of
TCCA AD CF-2009-29R4 that was not included in AD 2021-25-12.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited has issued Service Bulletin
84-32-161, Revision B, dated March 31, 2021, including UTC Aerospace
Systems Service Bulletin 47100-32-145, Revision 3, dated March 26,
2021. This service information describes procedures for modifying the
NLG shock strut assembly by replacing special bolt, part number (P/N)
47205-1 or 47205-3, with a new retention bolt, P/N NAS6204-14D (the
modification includes a reverse orientation of the retention bolt and a
rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity sensor cover to provide
clearance for the re-oriented retention bolt).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    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
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    This proposed AD would only require the modification specified in
Part I of TCCA AD CF-2009-29R4. The other actions specified in TCCA AD
CF-2009-29R4 are required by FAA AD 2021-25-12.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340...........................              $8             $348          $18,792
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously
Held by Bombardier, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0143; Project
Identifier MCAI-2021-01401-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by April 11, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (type
certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
and 4003 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a certain bolt at the pivot
pin link being found missing or having stress corrosion cracking.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of the pivot pin
retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control
or loss of a nose landing gear (NLG) tire during takeoff or landing,
which could lead to runway excursions.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    For any airplane having an NLG shock strut assembly, part number
(P/N) 47100-XX (where XX represents any number), that has special
bolt P/N 47205-1 or 47205-3: Within 1,600 flight cycles or 9 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, modify
the NLG shock strut assembly, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-161, Revision B,
dated March 31, 2021, including UTC Aerospace Systems Service
Bulletin 47100-32-145, Revision 3, dated March 26, 2021.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
Service Bulletin 84-32-161, dated April 7, 2020, including UTC
Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 47100-32-145, dated April 3,
2020; or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin
84-32-161, Revision A, dated January 27, 2021, including UTC
Aerospace Systems Service Bulletin 47100-32-145, Revision 2, dated
January 4, 2021.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (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, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation

(TCCA); or De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited's TCCA Design
Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2009-29R4, dated October 1, 2021, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2022-0143.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Antariksh
Shetty, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Q-Series Technical Help Desk,
123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone
416-375-4000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet
https://dehavilland.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on February 15, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-03718 Filed 2-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1Hutson, S. S., N. L. Barber, J. F. Kenny, K. S. Linsey, D. S. Lumia, and M. A. Maupin. 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1268. Background Information for Peer Review of Aspects of Benefit Analysis for Phase III of the 316( b) Rulemakings 1. Background on Section 316( b) Rulemakings Nationwide, over 1,500 facilities withdraw large volumes of water from U. S. surface waters to cool their operations. These facilities are located on a variety of waterbody types, including lakes, rivers, estuaries, and other coastal waters, at a number of locations throughout the United States ( see Figure 1). EPA is currently developing regulations for these facilities under section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act ( 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.). Section 316( b) addresses cooling water intake structures and requires that " the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." EPA's intent is to set technology based performance standards that minimize the environmental impact of cooling water intake structures by reducing impingement and entrainment. Impingement takes place when organisms are trapped against the outer portion of an intake by the force of water withdrawal. Entrainment occurs when organisms are drawn through the intake structure and into the cooling system where they are subject to thermal, physical, and chemical stressors. Both processes cause injury or death to hundreds of species of aquatic organisms.

The 316( b) rulemaking is divided into three phases:

Phase I rule, governing new facilities, was published on December 18, 2001.

Phase II rule, governing existing facilities whose primary activity is to generate and transmit electrical power and with a design intake flow of at least 50 million gallons per day ( MGD), was published on February 16, 2004.

Phase III rule, governing existing electric power producers not covered by the Phase II rule and all manufacturing facilities was proposed on November 1, 2004. EPA must make a final decision and issue a final regulatory action by June 1, 2006.

Of the approximately 408 billion gallons of water a day that are withdrawn from the surface waters of the United States for cooling, irrigation, manufacturing, drinking, livestock watering and other purposes1, EPA estimates approximately 237 billion gallons of water a day are withdrawn for the purposes of cooling. Of this amount, EPA estimates that facilities addressed in 2US EPA. 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register 69: 41586. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph2. htm 3US EPA. 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System   Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 69: 68465. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph3. htm 4 For more information on proposed regulatory options., see: US EPA. 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System   Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 69: 68465. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph3. htm 5 More information on EPA's draft benefits analysis for the Phase III rule, see: US EPA. 2004. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph3docs/ p3p_ ea. pdf the Phase II rule withdraw 214 billion gallons of water a day and facilities addressed in the Phase III rule withdraw 23 billion gallons of water a day. 2,3 2. National Benefits Analysis In developing regulations for Phase III facilities under section 316( b), EPA is examining a variety of regulatory options to reduce impingement and entrainment at these facilities. 4 As part of this examination, EPA is developing an estimate of the national economic benefits that may result from each of these options. The benefits analysis ultimately expresses benefits from each of the options in terms of dollars. Estimates are used both to assess each option and to compare the options with each other. 5 EPA must complete a final benefits analysis during the next several months in order to meet the court ordered deadline of June 1, 2006 for a final action on the Phase III rule.

To support the benefits analysis, it is necessary to determine the current environmental impact of facilities with cooling water intake structures and the reduction in impact that is expected to occur with each different regulatory option. An approach common in fisheries assessment and management and known as a " yield per recruit" model was used for the Phase II benefits analysis and for the proposed Phase III rule. EPA is now evaluating the utility of a population model based on an age structured projection matrix, as described in Newbold and Iovanna ( 2004). The sections below discuss aspects of the data available for implementing these models. Also provided is an overview of the main features and data requirements of the yield per recruit model used by EPA for the previous 316( b) benefits analyses. A more detailed description of this model is available in Section A1 4.2 of Chapter A1 of USEPA ( 2004).

3. Available Data 3.1 Impingement and Entrainment Data The available impingement and entrainment data are facility derived counts of organisms impinged and entrained. Nationwide, hundreds of different species are subject to impingement and entrainment. These species are listed in appendices to Parts B G of USEPA ( 2004). Figure 1 shows Phase III facilities for which precise location information is available ( out of an estimated universe of 683 Phase III facilities total). Most of the facilities that are in scope of the Phase III rule are located on lakes and rivers. Figure 1 also shows the locations of facilities that have conducted impingement and entrainment studies of sufficient quality to be used in EPA's analysis. Facility studies were excluded from EPA's analysis if the information reported was not suitable for the models used by EPA, which require annual loss rates expressed on a species and age specific basis. Studies were also excluded if they did not sample all of the facility's intakes, or indicate how to extrapolate from the sampled intakes to those not sampled. Additional details on the available impingement and entrainment data are provided in Section A1 3.1 of Chapter A1 of USEPA ( 2004).

Some facilities count impingement and entrainment losses throughout the year, but usually impingement and entrainment is monitored only during months when the greatest number of organisms are thought to be vulnerable to a facility's intakes. Facility documents sometimes indicate how losses for part of the year should be extrapolated to obtain an annual loss rate, but in most cases it is necessary to assume that seasonal counts reasonably approximate the total annual loss. Facility documents rarely include per capita impingement and entrainment mortality rates.

There is no standard protocol for sampling impingement and entrainment, so impingement and entrainment loss estimates are not necessarily comparable across facilities. Many factors can influence the accuracy of impingement and entrainment estimates, including the efficiency of the sampling gear, but these factors are seldom accounted for in loss records. Facility impingement and entrainment monitoring is also generally limited in duration and decades old.

Only a subset of facilities with cooling water intake structures have collected impingement and entrainment data, and in many cases losses for only a subset of the species impinged and entrained are counted. Most of the species counted are fish species, and most of these are forage species. Macroinvertebrate losses are rarely counted. Figure 1. Locations of in scope Phase III facilities and model facilities used for impingement and entrainment estimates.

3.2 Life History Data Both of the modeling approaches being examined for this peer review require species and stagespecific rates of growth, natural mortality, and fishing mortality. Ideally, growth and mortality rates would be obtained from a comprehensive, site specific monitoring program. However, few facilities with cooling water intake structures have collected site specific life history information. Therefore, it is usually necessary to obtain literature values for growth and mortality rates from other populations of the same or similar species. The scientific literature, stock assessments, the online database FishBase, and local fisheries experts are sources of this information. However, all of these data sources have limitations. There are fewer life history data available for freshwater species and species that are not harvested. Stock assessments are available for some exploited species, but they usually do not consider early life stage mortality, durations of early life stages, or stage specific fecundity. Even if mortality rates of early life stages are considered, they are difficult to measure with precision. Moreover, few studies measure all relevant parameters simultaneously. In addition, the available data may not always be for similar geographic locations and ecological settings as those in which the are species impinged and entrained, and they seldom indicate how rates may vary as environmental conditions change or as a function of potential density dependent effects. In addition to growth and mortality rates, population modeling also requires estimates of reproductive rates, population growth rates, and current population sizes. Unfortunately, this information is usually only available for exploited species. However, even for exploited species that have been extensively studied it can be difficult to define a discrete population for impact assessment purposes. For example, species such as Atlantic menhaden move in and out of estuaries over a broad geographic range that includes multiple facilities with cooling water intake structures. It is also not clear how to use fisheries monitoring data to determine the spatial extent of harvested populations affected by impingement and entrainment. The densities of organisms in the vicinity of facilities with cooling water intake structures are also not well characterized. Thus, in most cases there is a lack of empirical information on the total size of the affected population or even the size of the population of larvae within the zone of influence of the intake.

4. Yield Per Recruit Model Currently, EPA estimates changes in yield resulting from changes in impingement and entrainment by first converting losses of different life stages of fish to an equivalent number of one year olds, and then using a yield per recruit model to estimate the lifetime yield of the cohort of one year old fish that would have been produced had they not been impinged and entrained. The yield perrecruit model is based on the Thompson Bell model used in assessments of exploited fish species ( Ricker, 1975). The general procedure involves multiplying age specific harvest rates by age specific weights to calculate an age specific expected yield. The lifetime expected yield for a cohort of fish is then the sum of all age specific expected yields.

It is important to note that the yield per recruit model projects increases in yield resulting from reductions in impingement and entrainment through the life of the cohort only; it does not consider potential long term changes in population size or fish population dynamics. The method is described in detail in section A1 4.2 of Chapter A1 of U. S. EPA ( 2004).

The yield per recruit method addresses the indirect use value of forage fish by calculating the production foregone of these individuals and transferring this production to the yield of harvested species. Production foregone is the expected total amount of future growth in biomass of the individuals that were impinged or entrained, had they not been impinged or entrained. Forage species production foregone is added to the foregone yield of harvested species using a simple trophic transfer model. Details of these calculations are presented in sections A1 4.3 and A1 4.4 of Chapter A1 of U. S. EPA ( 2004).

The major assumptions of the yield per recruit model are that:

Species and stage specific growth and mortality rates are known and constant

Literature values for natural mortality include mortality due to impingement and entrainment

The yield from a cohort of fish is proportional to the number recruited.

The assumption that natural mortality and fishing mortality are constant implies that:

Impingement and entrainment losses are a relatively minor source of mortality in comparison to the total effects of all other sources of natural mortality

For most fish stocks, the scale of changes in impingement and entrainment loss rates being considered will not lead to dramatically large increases in the size of harvestable stocks.

For EPA's analysis, loss rates are calculated for facilities in each region with suitable impingement and entrainment data. Suitable data include species and life stage specific losses by year. Rates for facilities with data are extrapolated to facilities in the same region without data on the basis of intake flow to derive an estimate of the total loss in each region. The estimated regional impingement and entrainment totals are then summed to obtain an estimate of the relative magnitude of losses nationwide. Details of the extrapolation method are provided in section A1 5 of Chapter A1 of U. S. EPA ( 2004). Structural and parameter uncertainties are discussed in Chapter A2. Literature Cited Hutson, S. S., N. L. Barber, J. F. Kenny, K. S. Linsey, D. S. Lumia, and M. A. Maupin. 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1268.

Newbold, S. and R. Iovanna. 2004. Population level Impacts on Fish of Cooling Water Withdrawals.

Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 191.

US EPA. 2004. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph3docs/ p3p_ ea. pdf US EPA. 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System   Proposed Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase III Facilities; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 69: 68443 68565. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph3. htm US EPA. 2004. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register 69: 41575 41693. http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph2. htm U. S. EPA. 2004. Regional Benefits Assessment for the Proposed Section 316( b) Rule for Phase III Facilities. EPA EPA 821 R 04 017. November 2004. Available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ ph3docs/ p3_ rba_ fullreport. pdf.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 49877]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0103]

Notification of the Removal of Conditions of Entry on Vessels
Arriving From Cote d'Ivoire

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that it is removing the conditions
of entry on vessels arriving from the country of Cote d'Ivoire. Based
on the results of the most recent country visit, the Coast Guard has
determined that Cote d'Ivoire is now substantially implementing the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and has effective
anti-terrorism measures in place.

DATES: The policy announced in this notice is effective August 2, 2022

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email J.J. Hudson, Chief, Office of International and Domestic
Port Security, United States Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The authority for this notice is 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (``Administrative
Procedure Act''), 46 U.S.C. 70110 (``Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002''), and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3 (II)(97.f). As delegated, section 70110(a)
authorizes the Coast Guard to impose conditions of entry on vessels
arriving in U.S. waters from ports that the Coast Guard has not found
to maintain effective anti-terrorism measures.
    In 2011, the Coast Guard determined that effective anti-terrorism
measures were not in place in the ports of Cote d'Ivoire. Accordingly,
conditions of entry were imposed on vessels arriving from Cote
d'Ivoire. Based on recent assessments, the Coast Guard has determined
that Cote d'Ivoire is maintaining effective anti-terrorism measures,
and the Coast Guard is, accordingly, removing the conditions of entry
announced in previously published Notices. With this notice, the
current list of countries assessed and not maintaining effective anti-
terrorism measures is as follows: Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros,
Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, Madagascar, Micronesia, Nauru, Nigeria, Republic of Seychelles,
Sao Tome and Principe, Syria, Timor-Leste, Venezuela, and Yemen. The
current Port Security Advisory is available at: http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/International-Domestic-Port-Assessment/.

    Dated: August 3, 2022.
Peter W. Gautier,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Commandant for Operations.
[FR Doc. 2022-17372 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37152-37154]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14928]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0436; FRL-7732-03-OCSPP]

Development of Tiered Data Reporting To Inform TSCA
Prioritization, Risk Evaluation, and Risk Management; Notice of Public
Meeting and Opportunity To Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2021, EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) will hold a public meeting to engage with
interested stakeholders on the development of a proposed rule for
implementing a tiered data collection strategy to help inform the
Agency's prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management
activities for chemical substances or mixtures under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Currently, EPA primarily collects
exposure-related data through the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR)
process. EPA is interested in ensuring that data collection strategies
provide information to better meet the Agency's basic chemical data
needs, such as information related to exposure, health, and eco-
toxicity. To this end, EPA is exploring a data reporting rule that is
tiered to specific stages of the TSCA existing chemicals program:
Identifying a pool of substances as potential candidates for
prioritization, Selecting candidate chemicals for and completing the
prioritization process, and Assessing high-priority substances through
a robust risk evaluation, which may be followed by risk management
actions (depending on the outcome of the risk evaluation). Feedback
from the public meeting and comments received will help inform the
Agency's development of a proposed rule.

DATES:
    Meeting: The meeting will be held virtually via WebEx on July 27,
2021, from 1:00 to 3:00 EDT.
    Register by: Those who would like to make a comment during the
meeting must register by 6:00 p.m. EDT on July 22, 2021. Those who
would like to participate in listen-only mode must register by 6:00
p.m. EDT on July 26, 2021.
    Comments: Written comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0436, must be received on or before August
15, 2021.
    Accommodations: To request accommodation of a disability, please
contact the meeting contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA
as much time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: Register to attend this virtual public meeting at https://us-epa-tirered-data-reporting.eventbrite.com.
    Submit written comments to the docket for this action, identified
by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0436, online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Please note that due to the public health concerns related to
COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to
visitors with limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on the EPA/DC and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Susan Sharkey, Data Gathering
and Analysis Division (7410M), Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number: (202) 564-
8789; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For meeting logistics or registration assistance contact: Sarah
Swenson; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
(including import), process, or distribute or propose to manufacture
(including import), process, or distribute chemical substances or
mixtures that can be regulated under TSCA. Any use of the term
``manufacture'' in this document will encompass ``import,'' the term
``manufacturer'' will encompass ``importer,'' and the term ``chemical
substance'' will encompass ``byproduct chemical substance,'' unless
otherwise stated.
    This action may be of interest to other stakeholders, including
non-profit organizations in the environmental and public health sectors
and members of the public interested in the safety of chemical
substances used in industrial, commercial, and consumer settings. The
following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them,
and is based on the Agency's previous experience with TSCA section 8(a)
collections:
    [ssquf] Chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325); and
    [ssquf] Petroleum and coal product manufacturing (NAICS code 324).
    In addition to these anticipated respondents, the potentially
regulated community consists of manufacturers of byproducts that are
required to report under certain TSCA section 8(a) rules, including
CDR. Byproduct manufacturers may be listed under a different primary
NAICS activity code for a site, such as NAICS codes 22, 322, 327310,
331 and 3344, representing utilities, paper manufacturing, cement
manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and semiconductor and other
electronic component manufacturing, respectively.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

    TSCA requires EPA to evaluate the safety of existing chemical
substances via a three-stage process comprised of prioritization, risk
evaluation, and risk management. EPA's website (https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/how-epa-evaluates-safety-existing-chemicals) provides a detailed overview of these three stages.
Under TSCA, EPA is required to have at least 20 chemical risk
evaluations being conducted at any given time on substances designated
as high-priority substances. Therefore, EPA needs to maintain a pool of
potential candidate chemical substances to ensure that there are a
sufficient number of substances ready to be prioritized and, if
designated a high-priority substance, to be evaluated for risk under
TSCA.
    Currently, EPA relies on CDR for exposure-related information which
is used, along with data from other sources, to identify the potential
candidate chemicals. CDR requires submission of information to EPA by
manufacturers (including importers) every four years on the production
and use of chemicals in commerce. These basic exposure-related data
include information on the types, quantities and uses of chemical
substances produced domestically and imported into the United States.
EPA uses CDR data to support risk screening, chemical prioritization,
risk evaluation, and risk management activities, among other
activities. This information allows EPA to develop an understanding of
the types, amount, end uses, and possible exposure to chemicals in
commerce. The CDR database constitutes the most comprehensive source of
basic screening-level, exposure-related information on chemicals
available to EPA.
    CDR data, however, could be enhanced to provide more specific or
relevant data to meet the exposure-related needs of the existing
chemicals program. EPA needs data targeted to specific analyses at each
stage of the existing chemicals program. Such data include exposure,
health, and eco-toxicity information.

A. Stages of the Existing Chemicals Prioritization, Risk Evaluation,
and Risk Management Program

    Identification of Potential Candidates and Selection for
Prioritization: TSCA requires the systematic prioritization of tens of
thousands of existing chemicals for risk evaluation. EPA is required to
select a certain percentage of candidates for prioritization from
chemical substances listed on the 2014 Update of the TSCA Work Plan,
giving preference to chemicals with certain hazard characteristics.
Aside from the statutory preferences and requirements, EPA has broad
discretion to select which other chemical substances to prioritize. EPA
is interested in ensuring that exposure-related information collected
through CDR provides sufficient basic data to inform the potential
candidate selection process. Once a chemical substance is identified as
a potential candidate, EPA needs additional information to inform which
of the potential candidates should be selected to enter the
prioritization stage.
    Prioritization: EPA formally announces when a chemical substance is
to begin 9 to 12-month long prioritization stage and provides a 3-month
period for the public to submit relevant information for the subject
chemicals. EPA needs sufficient information to understand the use and
other exposure-related scenarios in order to inform the decision of
whether the chemical should be designated as high-priority substance
and, therefore, enter the risk evaluation process.
    Therefore, EPA is considering requiring certain necessary data be
reported by chemical manufacturers (including importers) and is
considering either notifying or collecting information from processors.
Additional information about the candidate selection and prioritization
processes is available on EPA's website, at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/prioritizing-existing-chemicals-risk-evaluation.
    Risk evaluation: Once a chemical is designated as a high-priority
substance, EPA begins to evaluate the risk of the chemical. The purpose
of risk evaluation is to determine whether a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,
including an unreasonable risk to a relevant potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulation. As part of this process, EPA must evaluate
both hazard and exposure, exclude consideration of costs or other non-
risk factors, use scientific

information and approaches in a manner that is consistent with the
requirements in TSCA for the best available science, and ensure
decisions are based on the weight of scientific evidence. EPA needs to
ensure that sufficient information is available to inform the risk
evaluation, including the development of the scope of the evaluation.
Information is needed in a timely manner. For example, the scope is
generally published as a draft within three months of a chemical being
designated as a high-priority substance, and the scope must be
finalized no later than six months after the initiation of the risk
evaluation process. Information is also needed to inform exposure and
hazard assessments. EPA is considering requiring chemical manufacturers
(including importers), processors, and distributors to submit
information to EPA to support these risk evaluation activities.
    Additional information about the risk evaluation process is
available on EPA's website, at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-evaluations-existing-chemicals-under-tsca.
    Risk management: Following risk evaluation, TSCA mandates that EPA
take action if the Agency determines that there are unreasonable risks
to public health or the environment from chemicals currently on the
market. If at the end of the risk evaluation process EPA determines
that a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment, the Agency must immediately start the risk
management rulemaking process to address the unreasonable risk. EPA
needs to ensure that sufficient information is available to develop
risk management plans and actions. For chemicals in the risk management
stage, the Agency is considering requiring manufacturers (including
importers), processors, and distributors to report the same type of
information reported during the risk evaluation stage to ensure that
EPA has the most up-to-date information to inform risk management
actions. For example, if a company reported using a chemical in a
particular manner at the beginning of the existing chemical process,
but changes occurred in some way during the stages of the existing
chemical process, the company would report on those data elements that
have changed.
    Additional information about the risk management process is
available on EPA's website, at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-existing-chemicals-under-tsca.

B. TSCA Data Reporting Authorities

    Under TSCA section 8, EPA is authorized to collect certain
information about chemical substances. EPA is considering using the
authorities under TSCA sections 8(a), 8(c), and 8(d) to develop a model
rule that can be used to trigger the need to report information for
each stage of the existing chemicals program.
    TSCA section 8(a)(1) authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate
rules under which manufacturers and processors of chemical substances
must maintain such records, and submit such information, as the EPA
Administrator may reasonably require. The information includes, to the
extent that it is known or reasonably ascertainable: Chemical identity
and related information; manufacturing and importing exposure-related
information including byproducts; processing and use exposure-related
information; and existing environmental and health effects information.
CDR, described previously, is an example of a TSCA section 8(a) rule.
    TSCA section 8(c) requires manufacturers, processors, and
distributors to maintain and, upon request, submit to EPA information
such as: Significant adverse health effects, consumer allegations,
occupational disease or injury, and complaints of injury to the
environment.
    TSCA section 8(d) requires manufacturers, processors, and
distributors to submit to EPA study information that is known or
reasonably ascertainable, including lists of health and safety studies
and, upon request, copies of such studies. The studies do not need to
be published to be included in the submission.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting by
following the information listed under DATES and ADDRESSES. If you have
questions about the meeting, you may contact the technical person for
meeting content questions or the meeting contact for logistics and
participation questions, as listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Do not submit any information in your request that is
considered CBI.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: July 8, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-14928 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36216-36219]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0291; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01321-A;
Amendment 39-22081; AD 2022-12-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace (Operations) Limited
and British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-15-06
for all British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model HP.137 Jetstream
Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200 and 3101, and Jetstream Model 3201
airplanes. AD 2017-15-06 required repetitively inspecting the main
landing gear (MLG) for cracks and, if cracks were found, replacing the
MLG with an airworthy part. Since the FAA issued AD 2017-15-06, the
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of the United Kingdom (UK) superseded
the mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to correct an unsafe condition
on these products. This AD retains the initial inspection and the
calculation of hours time-in-service to flight cycle actions required
by AD 2017-15-06, but decreases the repetitive inspection interval time
from 1,200 flight cycles to 900 flight cycles. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 21, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 21,
2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of August
31, 2017 (82 FR 34846).

ADDRESSES: For British Aerospace service information identified in this
final rule, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd., Customer Information
Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, United
Kingdom; phone: +44 3300 488727; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/. For H[eacute]roux Devtek service
information identified in this final rule, contact H[eacute]roux Devtek
Product Support, 8, Pembroke Court, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7
1TG, United Kingdom; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.herouxdevtek.com/en/contact-us. You may view this service
information at the Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0291.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0291; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S.

Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-15-06, Amendment 39-18966 (82 FR
34846, July 27, 2017) (AD 2017-15-06). AD 2017-15-06 applied to all
British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1,
Jetstream Series 200 and 3101, and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. AD
2017-15-06 required repetitively inspecting the MLG and, if cracks were
found, replacing the MLG with an airworthy part. The FAA issued AD
2017-15-06 to detect and correct cracks in the MLG fitting at the
pintle to cylinder interface, which could cause failure of the MLG.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2022 (87 FR
17211). The NPRM was prompted by CAA UK AD G-2021-0015, dated November
24, 2021 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''). The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found during early fatigue testing and in service on
the main landing gear (MLG) main fitting at the pintle to cylinder
interface.
    This condition if not detected and corrected, could lead to
structural failure of the MLG, possibly resulting in loss of control
of the aeroplane during take-off or landing runs.
    To address this unsafe condition, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd
published several Service Bulletins (ISB) which, in 1996, were
consolidated into a single bulletin, SB 32-JA960142, to provide
instructions for inspection. CAA issued AD 005-03-96 accordingly to
require repetitive inspections of the MLG.
    In 2014 a crack was found which was below the critical crack
length, but unusually large compared to similar cracks previously
found in service. Further investigation into the subject determined
that the existing inspection intervals remain valid but also showed
that the assumed detectable defect size of a 1.27mm [millimeters]
(0.05 in) [inch] crack could not be guaranteed using the then
defined accomplishment instructions for a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) or fluorescent dye penetrant (FDP) inspection.
    Consequently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32-JA960142
Revision 4, which provided an improved procedure for HFEC and FDP
inspection to ensure the detection of cracks of 1.27 mm (0.05 in)
length.
    In response to this revision, EASA issued AD 2017-0053
(corrected 24 March 2017) addressing the need for revised inspection
procedures.
    Recently, an operator performing [EASA] AD 2017-0053
(referencing SB 32-JA960142 rev 4) identified 3 crack indications
(13 mm, 3 mm & 8 mm) in close proximity, the total length of which
was approximately 38 mm. This was an unusual report based of
reported findings over the 24 years since the SB was initially
released. In depth laboratory investigation of the discrepant part
was undertaken, which found that the material was to specification
and the cracks were fatigue in nature. The investigation was unable
to establish a reason for the cracks being different in nature to
those previously reported.
    In response, a further damage tolerance analysis was performed,
which identified the need to reduce the repeat inspection interval
defined in [EASA] AD 2017-0053. That is, a reduction from a repeat
of 1,200 flight cycles (FC) to a repeat of 900 FC.
    For the reasons described above, this [CAA UK] AD retains the
requirements of CAA UK AD 005-03-96 (superseded by EASA AD) and EASA
AD 2017-0053 (superseded by this CAA AD) and requires the
accomplishment of repetitive inspections in accordance with new
repetitive inspection requirements.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-
0291.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the initial inspection, the
calculation of hours time-in-service to flight cycle action, and
replacement as necessary required by AD 2017-15-06, but proposed to
decrease the repetitive inspection interval time from 1,200 flight
cycles to 900 flight cycles. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracks in the MLG. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could cause failure of the MLG, which could result in loss of control
of the airplane during takeoffs and landings.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200
Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision 5, dated December 13, 2019. This
service information specifies procedures for doing a fluorescent
penetrant inspection for cracks in the MLG. Alternatively, this service
information specifies conducting an eddy current inspection for cracks
in the MLG in accordance with H[eacute]roux Devtek Service Bulletin 32-
56, Revision 4, dated August 16, 2016, which the Director of the
Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of August
31, 2017 (82 FR 34846). This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200
Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision 4, dated October 21, 2016. This
service information specifies procedures for doing a fluorescent
penetrant inspection for cracks in the MLG. Alternatively, this service
information specifies conducting an eddy current inspection for cracks
in the MLG in accordance with H[eacute]roux Devtek Service Bulletin 32-
56, Revision 4, dated August 16, 2016, which the Director of the
Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of August
31, 2017 (82 FR 34846).

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI does not apply to the Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1
airplanes or Model Jetstream Series 200 airplanes, whereas this AD does
include those models because they have an FAA type certificate and
share a similar type design in the affected area.
    The MCAI and service information apply to Model Jetstream Series
3100 and Jetstream Series 3200 airplanes, which are identified on the
FAA type certificates as Jetstream Model 3101 airplanes and Jetstream
Model 3201 airplanes, respectively.
    The MCAI gives credit for inspections and corrective actions
accomplished

before the effective date of the MCAI using ``BAE Systems (Operations)
Ltd SB 32-JA960142 at Revision 5, Revision 4, or Revision 3.'' This AD
does not give credit for Revision 3, dated August 31, 2016, as AD 2017-
15-06 did not provide credit and the FAA did not receive any requests
to use Revision 3 as an alternative method of compliance.
    The MCAI requires compliance with all of the accomplishment
instructions in the service information, which includes reporting the
inspection results (if there is a crack) to the manufacturer. This AD
does not require reporting information to the manufacturer.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                  Labor cost           Parts cost        Cost per airplane      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  6 work-hours x     Not applicable........  $510 per           $9,180 per
                                  $85 per hour =                             inspection cycle.  inspection
                                  $510 per                                                      cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to replace the MLG based on
the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the
number of airplanes that might need this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost       airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the MLG...............................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85          $5,000          $5,085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2017-15-06, Amendment 39-18966 (82
FR 34846, July 27, 2017); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2022-12-09 British Aerospace (Operations) Limited and British
Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Amendment 39-22081; Docket No. FAA-
2022-0291; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01321-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 21, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-15-06, Amendment 39-18966 (82 FR 34846,
July 27, 2017) (AD 2017-15-06).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Model
HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Model
3101 airplanes and British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model
Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in
any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 3211, Main Landing
Gear Attach Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by cracks found on the main landing gear
(MLG) main fitting at the pintle to cylinder interface. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the MLG. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could cause failure of the MLG, which
could result in loss of control of the airplane during takeoffs and
landings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions

    (1) Within the compliance times listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or
(ii) of this AD, as applicable, inspect the MLG for cracks by
following Appendix 1, sections A through G, of British Aerospace
Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision
5, dated December 13, 2019; or the Accomplishment Instructions,
sections A through D(6), in H[eacute]roux Devtek Service

Bulletin 32-56, Revision 4, dated August 16, 2016.
    (i) For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with AD
2017-15-06: Before the MLG accumulates 900 flight cycles since the
last inspection or within 150 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 900 flight cycles.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance
with AD 2017-15-06: Before the MLG accumulates 8,000 flight cycles
since first installation on an airplane or within 50 flight cycles
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 900 flight cycles.
    (2) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the MLG
with an airworthy MLG and continue the inspections as required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (3) The compliance times in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of
this AD are presented in flight cycles (landings). If the number of
total flight cycles is unknown, for purposes of this AD, the number
of flight cycles is the hours time-in-service (TIS) accumulated on
the airplane multiplied by 0.75. For example:
    (i) 100 hours TIS x 0.75 = 75 flight cycles.
    (ii) 1,000 hours TIS x 0.75 = 750 flight cycles.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) Refer to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) United Kingdom (UK)
AD G-2021-0015, dated November 24, 2021, for more information. You
may examine the CAA UK AD at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FAA-2022-0291.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 21, 2022.
    (i) British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service
Bulletin 32-JA960142, Revision 5, dated December 13, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 31, 2017 (82 FR 34846).
    (i) H[eacute]roux Devtek Service Bulletin 32-56, Revision 4,
dated August 16, 2016.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For British Aerospace service information identified in this
AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd., Customer Information
Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW,
United Kingdom; phone: +44 3300 488727; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/. For H[eacute]roux Devtek service
information identified in this AD, contact H[eacute]roux Devtek
Product Support, 8, Pembroke Court, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire,
WA7 1TG, United Kingdom; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.herouxdevtek.com/en/contact-us.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 6, 2022.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-12870 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 29149]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property From Quitclaim Deed;
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, Fort Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release
approximately 64.32 acres of airport property at Fort Lauderdale
Executive Airport, Fort Lauderdale, FL, from the conditions,
reservations, and restrictions as contained in a Quitclaim Deed
agreement between the FAA and the City of Fort Lauderdale, FL, dated
March 11, 1947. The release of property will allow the City of Fort
Lauderdale to dispose of the property for other than aeronautical
purposes. The property is located within Tract 1 of F-X-E Plat (Parcels
19B, 25, 26 and 27) at the northwest corner of W. Commercial Boulevard
(S.R. 870) and NW. 12th Avenue. The parcels are currently designated as
non-aeronautical land use. The property will be released of its federal
obligations for commercial land use. The fair market value of these
parcels have been determined to be $12,085,000.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at Fort Lauderdale
Executive Airport, 6000 NW 21st Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309; and
the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must
be delivered or mailed to: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager, Orlando
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400,
Orlando, FL 32822-5024. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are
available for inspection by appointment only at Fort Lauderdale
Executive Airport and by contacting the FAA at the address listed
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on May 14, 2015.
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-12260 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62093-62094]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-3-000]

Establishing Interregional Transfer Capability Transmission
Planning and Cost Allocation Requirements; Notice of Staff-Led Workshop

    Take notice that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
staff will convene a workshop to discuss whether and how the Commission
could establish a minimum requirement for interregional transfer
capability \1\ for public utility transmission providers in
transmission planning and cost allocation processes in the above-
captioned proceeding on December 5 and 6, 2022, from approximately
12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission's regulations, as revised by Order No. 890,
define total transfer capability as ``the amount of electric power
that can be moved or transferred reliably from one area to another
area of the interconnected transmission systems by way of all
transmission lines (or paths) between those areas under specified
system conditions, or such definition as contained in Commission-
approved Reliability Standards.'' 18 CFR 35.6(b)(1)(vi) (2021). In
the context of interregional transfer capability, an ``area'' in the
above definition would be a transmission planning region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This workshop will consider the question of whether and how to
establish a minimum requirement for interregional transfer capability.
Topics for discussion may include: how to identify the purpose and
value of setting a minimum requirement for interregional transfer
capability; how to develop appropriate criteria, metrics, and models to
establish a minimum requirement for interregional transfer capability;
the transmission planning horizon and minimum interregional transfer
capability requirements; whether operational agreements currently act
as a barrier to interregional transfer capability; and how the costs of
transmission facilities identified to achieve a minimum requirement for
interregional transfer capability should be allocated between and/or
within

public utility transmission providers' transmission planning regions.
    The workshop will take place virtually, with remote participation
from both presenters and attendees. Further details on remote
attendance and participation will be released prior to the workshop.
    Individuals interested in participating as panelists should submit
a self-nomination email by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 21, 2022,
to [email protected]. Each nomination should state
the proposed panelist's name, contact information, organizational
affiliation, position title, a short biography, and what topic(s) the
proposed panelist would speak on. If applicable, please also include
with the nomination the name and contact information of any other
individual that should also be copied on correspondence.
    The workshop will be open to the public and there is no fee for
attendance. An additional supplemental notice will be issued with
further details regarding the workshop agenda and logistics, as well as
any changes in timing. Information will also be posted on the Calendar
of Events on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the
event.
    The workshop will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be
available for a fee from Ace Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>). A free webcast
of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone
with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides
technical support for the free webcasts. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email [email protected] if you have any questions.
    Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this workshop, please contact Jessica
Cockrell at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 6, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22230 Filed 10-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 59757]
[DOCID:fr11oc06-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-615-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

October 3, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(El Paso) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No. 1-A, Thirty-First Revised Sheet No. 1 and Twelfth
Revised Sheet No. 2 to become effective November 1, 2006, and three
firm transportation service agreements (TSAs) with Public Service
Company of New Mexico.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-16772 Filed 10-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P