                               Supporting Statement
                                       for
                  Claims Under The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
                              OMB NO.:  1625-0067
                     COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  INSTRUCTION

   A. JUSTIFICATION

This Information Collection Request application supports a renewal of the existing information collection authorized under OMB 1625-0067.  The current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) authorization supports the efforts of the U.S. Coast Guard National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) to adjudicate claims submitted by affected parties for reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund), in accordance with provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).  Finally, this application revises burden estimates to be consistent with the burden estimation process outlined by OMB in the 1999 publication The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:  Implementing Guidance.  Below we provide supporting information consistent with OMB instructions for completing an 83-I form.

   1.    Circumstances Requiring Information Collection

The information collection requirements described in this supporting statement are necessary to implement the claims provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).  To ensure fair and reasonable payments to claimants and to protect the interests of the Federal Government, all claims must be fully substantiated and the procedures for advertising and presentation of claims must be followed, set out in OPA.  The Authority for this collection is 33 U.S.C. 2713 and 2714.

   2.    Purpose of Information Collection

This information collection request supports all claims adjudication activities undertaken by the NPFC.  The NPFC will use the information collected under this request to determine whether claims submitted to the Fund are compensable from the Fund.  For compensable claims, the information collected will also provide the basis for determining the appropriate reimbursement of removal costs or compensation for suffered/sustained damages from the Fund.  If the information is not collected, NPFC will be unable to comply with the provisions of OPA that require that all claims must be fully substantiated.

   3.    Use of Electronic Collection

Electronic information collection is not practical for this information collection effort.  Claims are one-time efforts that reflect a variety of circumstances, and may require supporting data that are unique to specific claims and may not exist in electronic form (e.g., financial statements).

   4.    Duplication of Effort

Current regulations under OPA require claimants to submit claims to responsible parties (RPs) where these have been identified, prior to submitting claims to NPFC.  Claims not settled by the RPs within 90 days of submission may be filed with the NPFC for payment from the Fund.  Claims to NPFC may require some duplication of effort for cases in which an RP is identified, to the extent that claimants must reassemble and resubmit materials.

   5.    Minimizing Burden on Small Entities

Because burden is determined by the complexity of the claim (e.g., the type and amount of costs/damages incurred) and not the size of the entity, it is not possible to systematically provide alternative information requirements for small entities without compromising the quality and consistency of the adjudication process.

   6.    Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

A claim represents a single, voluntary submission of information by each claimant after damage has occurred (i.e., following a spill).  Reduced information collection would impair the ability of the Coast Guard to adjudicate claims as required by OPA.

   7.    Unusual ICR Requirements

Information will be collected in a manner consistent with 5 CFR 1320.6.

   8.    Public Comments

A 60-day Notice will be was published in the Federal Register to obtain public comment on this collection.

   9.    Payments or Gifts to Respondents

No payment or gift to respondents is provided.

   10.    Assurance of Confidentiality

All information will be handled in accordance with Agency policy ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Privacy Act.
   11.    Questions of a Sensitive Nature

The information collected for the NPFC claims process does not include questions of a sensitive nature.

   12.    Estimates of the Hour Burden

The NPFC claims process requires all claimants to read regulations, assemble materials, and submit claims.  In addition, the process may require clarification of needed information, submission of supplementary information, and the effort required to submit a denied claim for reconsideration.  Estimated claimant burden hours associated with all activities are based on review of claim files and instructions and consultation with Coast Guard staff.  These hours do not include the effort of paid preparers (e.g., attorneys and accountants) or consultants (e.g., scientists and analysts); that effort is included in cost burden in Exhibits 3 and 4.  The description and calculation of total hour burden is described below.

Activities Required by Claims Process

Burden associated with the claims regulations generally involves five separate activities, and is estimated based on average effort per claim.  These five activities are: obtaining and reading regulations; claim preparation; supplemental/clarifying activities; reconsideration requests; and preparation of advertisements.  The per-claim estimates do not describe actual burden associated with a specific claim.  Actual claims range from very simple (e.g., a damaged fishing net) to very complex (e.g., lost business from declines in tourism following a spill), and the burden associated with these claims varies considerably.  Average estimates of burden, based on expert opinion and review of claim files, remain the same as previously reported except for the reduction of hours for claim preparation activity.  This is based on the availability of historical determinations found on the web which account for +the +time savings.  Burden hours are summarized below in Exhibit 1:

                                   EXHIBIT 1

                    BURDEN HOURS BY CLAIMS PROCESS ACTIVITY
                                   Category
                            Claims Process Activity

                          Obtain and Read Regulations
                               Claim Preparation
                     Supplemental / Clarifying Activities
                           Reconsideration Requests
Third Party Damage Claims
(includes Loss of Profits and Earnings, Loss of Government Revenue, Loss of Subsistence Use, Public Service, Loss of Real or Personal Property)
                                       2
                                      16
                                       8
                                      16
Removal Cost Claims
                                       2
                                      16
                                       8
                                      16
Responsible Party Claims
(includes Affirmative Defense and Limit of Liability)
                                      10
                                      80
                                      60
                                      40

                         Preparation of Advertisement

Advertising by Responsible Parties
                                      10
                                      15
                                      n/a
                                      n/a

Calculation of Total Hour Burden

The total hour burden estimate, in Exhibit 2 below, is based on the above hour estimates for each activity multiplied by the anticipated number of claims requiring that activity.  The total number of claims anticipated is based on annual average claims received for the calendar years 2012 through 2014.  The trend indicates that the average claim has become more complicated.  The number of claims expected to be submitted for reconsideration and the number of designated spills are based on historical averages from calendar years 2012 through 2014.  Finally, the number of claims anticipated to require clarification is based on the expert opinions and historical practice of NPFC staff.

Burden associated with initial review of regulations and claims filing applies to all claims.  Burden associated with clarification and reconsideration efforts applies to the estimated numbers of claims requiring these activities.  Claims are sorted into four categories of claim type to reflect different frequencies of clarification and reconsideration. The burden associated with responsible party's advertising applies to all designated spills (regardless of whether or not there are any associated claims).  The total estimated annual hour burden estimates for all NPFC claims adjudication activities (including both claimant burden and RP advertising) is 9370 hours. The anticipated number of cases, activities, and associated burden hours are summarized in Exhibit 2.

                                   EXHIBIT 2

NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED CLAIMS, DESIGNATIONS, AND RESULTING BURDEN HOURS (Annually)
                                  Claim Type
                                Initial Claims/
                                 Designations
                        Number Requiring Clarification
                     Number Submitted for Reconsideration
                             Total Burden Hours**
Third Party Damage Claims*
(includes Loss of Profits and Earnings, Loss of Government Revenue, Loss of Subsistence Use, Public Service, Loss of Real or Personal Property)
                                      150
                                      120
                                      17
                                     3932
Removal Cost Claims*
                                      133
                                      106
                                      16
                                     3498
Responsible Party Claims*
(includes Affirmative Defense and Limit of Liability)
                                      12
                                      12
                                       3
                                     1920
CLAIMS SUBTOTAL
                                      295
                                      238
                                      36
                                     9350
ADVERTISING
                                      10
                                      n/a
                                      n/a
                                      20
TOTAL BURDEN HOURS
                                    9370***
*   Number of claims reflects average of claim submissions to NPFC from CY 2012 to CY 2014.
** Total burden hours for each claim type are calculated as follows:
[(# of Claims) X (# of Hours for Reviewing the Regulations)] + [(# of Claims) X (# of Hours for Claim Preparation)] + [(# of Claims Requiring Clarification) X (# of Hours for Clarification Activities)] + [(# of Claims submitted for Reconsideration) X (# of Hours for a Reconsideration Request)] = Total Burden Hours
***Total Burden Hours value rounded to nearest 10 for simplicity

Total burden hours for the claimant, presented above in Exhibit 2, are calculated by multiplying the number of claims by the hours required for each of the four different activities, as set out in Exhibit 1.  For example, using the information presented in Exhibits 1 and 2, Total Burden Hours for Third Party Damage Claimants are calculated as follows:

      (150 X 2) + (150 X 16) + (120 X 8) + (17 X 16) = 3932 Burden Hours

Other Costs Associated with Compliance

In addition to burden hours, costs associated with compliance include:

1.          Paid preparer expenses (i.e., accounting and legal assistance)
2.          Other direct expenses (e.g., postage, copying, advertising costs); and
3.          For NRD claims, contractor expenses related to damage assessment

Exhibit 3 summarizes the average estimated hours of paid preparers employed in the NPFC claims process by activity.  Exhibit 4 summarizes the estimated cost burden on the public associated with compliance with the NPFC claims process.

                                   EXHIBIT 3
                     ACTIVITIES REQUIRED BY CLAIMS PROCESS
                               Claimant Activity
                                Hours per Claim

                         Third Party and Other Claims
                                   RP Claims

                                Paid Preparer*
                                Paid Preparer*
Obtain and read regulations
                                      10
                                      25
Claim Preparation
                                      85
                                      300
Supplemental/Clarifying Activities
                                      20
                                      100
Reconsideration Request
                                      50
                                      50
a  There are no estimated Paid Preparer hours for Removal Claims.

Assumptions

Paid Preparer Expenses:  For claims involving third party damages and for claims by responsible parties (i.e., for affirmative defense and limit of liability), paid preparer costs are estimated at $200 per hour, based upon input from actual claimant documents.

Other Direct Expenses:  Other direct expenses include postage, copying, and telephone expenses.  NRD estimates are higher based on the quantity of information required and are reported in parentheses. These costs are estimated as follows:

1.          Obtaining and reading regulations:	$5 per claim
2.          Filing the initial claim:	$20 per claim
3.          Providing supplementary or clarifying materials:     $20 per claim
4.          Pursuing a reconsideration of the claim request:	$200 per claim
5.          Responsible party advertising costs:	$6,840 per designation

Note that advertising costs reflect the requirement to advertise over a 30-day period.  NPFC historical records of advertising costs show that costs vary from a few hundred dollars (e.g., to print posters and circulate letters in an area near a small spill) to advertisements in multiple metropolitan newspapers (costing thousands of dollars).  $24,667 represents the most recent cost provided by an RP.

                                   EXHIBIT 4

        ANNUAL COST BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR CLAIM SUPPORT AND OTHER COSTS
Claim Type
(Reference Exhibit 2)
                              Paid Preparer Costs
                                 Other Costs
                            (including advertising)
                                    Total*
Third-Party Damages
                                  $3,500,000
                                    $37,900
                                  $3,537,900
Removal Costs
                                      $ -
                                     $8537
                                     $8537
Responsible Party Claims
                                  $1,050,000
                                     $3600
                                  $1,053,600
Advertising
                                      $ -
                                    $24,667
                                    $24,667
TOTAL
                                  $4,550,000
                                    $74,704
                                 $4,624,704**
*Calculation for claim support for each claim types was calculated as follows and is explained in detail in Exhibit 5: [(# of Claims) X (# of Hours for Reviewing the Regulations) X (Hourly Wage for Paid Preparer)] + (# of Claims X Other Costs associated with Reading the Regulations) + [(# of Claims) X (# of Hours for Claim Preparation) X (Hourly Wage of Paid Preparer)] +  (# of Claims X Other Costs associated with Claim Preparation) + [(# of Claims Requiring Clarification) X (# of Hours for Clarification Activities) X (Hourly Wage for Paid Preparer)] + (# of Claims Requiring Clarification X Other Costs associated with Claim Clarification Activities) + [(# of Claims Submitted for Reconsideration) X (# of Hours for a Reconsideration Request) X (Hourly Wage for Paid Preparer)] + (# of Claims Submitted for Reconsideration X Other Costs associated with Reconsideration Activities) =Total Cost of Claim Support
**Total rounded to the nearest 10 for simplicity

Total cost burden estimates for claim support and other costs, presented above in Exhibit 4, are calculated by multiplying the number of claims, number of claims requiring clarification, and the number of claims submitted for reconsideration by the number of hours supplied for each activity by either a paid preparer or contractor and also with other costs associated with each activity.  As an example, Exhibit 5 below shows how total cost burden for claim support and other costs are calculated for Responsible Party Claims.

                                   EXHIBIT 5
                    EXAMPLE COST CALCULATION FROM EXHIBIT 4
                           RESPONSIBLE PARTY CLAIMS

                              Paid Preparer Cost
                                   Activity
                               Number of Claims*
                             Paid Preparer Hours**
                            Paid Preparer Wage/ hr.
                            Total Cost by Activity
Obtain and read regulations
                                      12
                                      25
                                    $200.00
                                    $60,000
Claim Preparation
                                      12
                                      300
                                    $200.00
                                   $720,000
Clarifying Activities
                                      12
                                      100
                                    $200.00
                                   $240,000
Reconsideration Request
                                       3
                                      50
                                    $200.00
                                    $30,000
Total Paid Preparer Cost
                                                                                $1,050,000
                                   Activity
                                  Other Costs
Obtain and read regulations
                                      12
                                      n/a
                                      $50
                                     $600
Claim Preparation
                                      12
                                      n/a
                                     $100
                                     $1200
Supplemental/ Clarifying Activities
                                      12
                                      n/a
                                     $100
                                     $1200
Reconsideration Request
                                       3
                                      n/a
                                     $200
                                     $600
Total Other Costs
                                                                                $3600
                 TOTAL FOR CLAIM SUPPORT AND OTHER COSTS (RP)
                                  $1,053,600
*	Information obtained from Exhibit 2
**	Information obtained from Exhibit 3

Total Monetized Burden Estimate

OMB's guidance (i.e., in the 1999 Information Collection Budget and The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:  Implementing Guidance) emphasizes the importance of monetizing hour burden estimates to provide single monetary estimates of total burden.   Total monetized hour burden associated with the NPFC claims process is applied to the burden hours above, using the following values:

Claimant Costs (private sector): 	$44.66 per hour

Because past claimants reflect a broad range of occupations and geographic locations, we use the 2013 national average salary for all occupations of $22.33 per hour to approximate claimant wages.  We then adjust this rate to include a 100 percent overhead rate to allow for benefits and other costs included in standard overhead rates, resulting in a cost of $44.66 per hour. In addition, advertising is estimated to consume approximately 2 hours of staff time per advertisement at the above wage rate.

Claimant Costs (public sector):   	$84.00 per hour

To assess the cost of government effort, we use GS-13 level employee rates, based on the rates of reimbursement that the Coast Guard charges to RPs for adjudication activities.  We assume that this rate of $84.00 per hour is fully loaded with overhead and applies to all government claimants (i.e., the government officials specifically involved in preparing claims).

NPFC claims staff note that, in general, third party damage, removal cost, and RP claims are filed by private sector parties, while the majority of NRD claims are filed by public sector parties.  Therefore, monetization of burden assumes that private sector claimant costs apply to third party damage, removal cost, and RP claims, and public sector claimant costs apply to all NRD.  Exhibit 6 summarizes total monetized burden associated with the NPFC claims process.  Monetized Claimant Hour Burden (Exhibit 2) is calculated as follows:
Third Party Damage Claimants: (3932 Hrs) X ($44.66) = $175,603.12.
Removal Cost Claimants: (3498 Hrs) X ($44.66) = $156,220.68
Responsible Party Claims: (1920 Hrs) X ($44.66) = $85,747.20
Advertising: (20Hrs) X ($44.66.) = $893.20
                                   EXHIBIT 6

                        TOTAL MONETIZED BURDEN ESTIMATE
                                  Claim Type
                                 Claimant Hour
                                    Burden
                                  (Exhibit 2)
                        Monetized Claimant Hour Burden
                            Additional Cost Burden
         (including paid preparer, contractor, and other direct costs)
                                  (Exhibit 4)
                            Total Monetized Burden
Third-Party Damages
                                     3932
                                   $175,603
                                  $3,537,900
                                  $3,713,503
Removal Costs
                                     3498
                                   $156,221
                                     $8537
                                   $164,758
Responsible Party Claims
                                     1920
                                    $85,747
                                  $1,053,600
                                  $1,139,347.
Advertising
                                      20
                                     $893
                                    $24,667
                                    $25,560
TOTAL
                                     9370
                                   $418,464
                                  $4,624,704
                                  $5,043,168

Conservative Assumptions
The burden estimates reported above are likely to represent upper limits of expected burden for two reasons:
   1.           The estimates do not assume that claimants have previously submitted the claim to an RP.  For claims with an identified RP, the burden associated with submitting a claim to the Coast Guard is likely to be lower because all or a portion of the claim has already been prepared.
   2.           The estimates do not account for some expenses that have the potential to be reimbursed as part of the claim payment.
It is difficult to predict the number of claims that will be submitted to RPs and the requirements for these claims, and it is difficult to predict the portion of claim preparation that will be determined to be compensable.  Therefore, the burden estimates are not adjusted to reflect these issues, and are likely to represent high-end estimates of actual burden.

   13. Estimates of Cost Burden

There are no annualized capital and start-up costs.

   14. Estimates of the Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

The annualized cost to the Federal Government of collecting information associated with claims is generally limited to advertising, initial processing of claims materials, and requests for clarifying or supplemental information.  However, these activities have historically been tracked as part of the more general claims adjudication process and have sometimes been divided among Coast Guard and contractor staff.  However, according to NPFC personnel, costs specific to information collection and management likely represent roughly five percent of the total claims adjudication cost.

The total annual cost associated with all claims adjudication activities includes the cost of 18 full-time equivalent (FTE) claims adjudication staff, in addition to the total contractor budget associated with the claims division.  Claims adjudicators are GS-13, with an estimated total cost of $84 per hour (based on the rates of reimbursement that the Coast Guard charges to RPs for adjudication activities), and estimated to work an average of 2,000 hours annually.  Estimated annual contracting costs of $180,000 are based on the 2007 report, where a snapshot of a representative six months period of effort related to claims support, doubled to reflect annual costs.  Based on these assumptions, total government costs for claims adjudication are $5,043,168, and costs specific to information collection and management represent roughly five percent of this cost, or $252,158.

   15. Reasons for Adjustments to Reporting in Paragraphs 13 or 14

The estimates reported in paragraph 14 differ from previous hour and cost burden estimates for NPFC activities under OMB # 1625-0067 for the following reasons:

1.          2012-2014 Time Period:  Data for the most recent 3 years were used in the calculation of average claims submissions and the most recent references for hourly rates was applied.

2.          Increase in the Monetized Burden:  The monetized burden increased by $2,667,168. This increase is the result of the increase in the number of more complex claims submitted (Responsible Party claims and complex lost profit claims as well as an increase in the number of claims that requested reconsideration. Not only did the number of hours spent on these more complex claims increase but the hourly rate paid for experts to assist increased.

   13. Publication of Results

The information collected will not be published.

   14. Display of OMB Date of Approval

OMB date of approval will be displayed.

   15. Exceptions to Certification
NO EXCEPTIONS ARE REQUESTED.
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION USING STATISTICAL METHODS
THIS INFORMATION COLLECTION EFFORT ADDRESSES SPECIFIC INFORMATION SUPPORTING DAMAGE OR REMOVAL COST CLAIMS BY CLAIMANTS.  STATISTICAL METHODS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN THIS CONTEXT.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 159 (Monday, August 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49941-49944]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0589; Product Identifier 2017-SW-020-AD; Amendment
39-21215; AD 2020-17-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-02-06
for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 429
helicopters. AD 2016-02-06 required inspecting certain tail rotor (T/R)
pitch link bearing bores for corrosion and pitting. AD 2016-02-06 also
required a repetitive inspection of the sealant and repeating the
inspections for corrosion and pitting if any sealant is missing. This
new AD retains the requirements of AD 2016-02-06, expands the
applicability, and adds a repetitive inspection. This AD was prompted
by an FAA determination that additional part-numbered T/R pitch link
assemblies (links) are affected by the same unsafe condition and that
an additional repetitive inspection is necessary to address the unsafe
condition. The actions of this AD are intended to address an unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 21, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 2,
2016 (81 FR 5367, February 2, 2016).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
450-433-0272; or at https://www.bellcustomer.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for

and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0589.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2019-0589; 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 AD, the Transport Canada
AD, any service information that is incorporated by reference, any
comments received, and other information. The street 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: Scott Franke, Aviation Safety
Engineer, International Validation Branch, Aviation and Rotorcraft
Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to remove AD 2016-02-06, Amendment 39-18387 (81 FR 5367,
February 2, 2016) (``AD 2016-02-06'') and add a new AD. AD 2016-02-06
applied to Bell Model 429 helicopters with a T/R link part number (P/N)
429-012-112-101, -101FM, -103, or -103FM installed. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on August 20, 2019 (84 FR 43085). Since the FAA
issued AD 2016-02-06, improved T/R links P/N 429-012-112-111 and -113
were developed, but recurring inspections of the sealant of these T/R
links are still necessary because they are subject to the same unsafe
condition due to design similarity. Some T/R links P/N 429-012-112-101
and -103 have also been field modified and re-identified as T/R links
P/N 429-012-112-111FM and -113FM, and continue to need recurring
inspections of the sealant as they are also subject to the same unsafe
condition due to design similarity.
    The NPRM proposed to continue the requirements of AD 2016-02-06 and
add P/Ns 429-012-112-111, -111FM, -113, and -113FM to the
applicability. The NPRM also proposed to add use of 10X or higher power
magnification to the visual inspection of each cleaned T/R link for
pitting and a repetitive 12-month inspection with the corrosion
preventative sealant removed.
    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada,
issued AD No. CF-2016-01R2, dated April 12, 2017 (AD CF-2016-01R2) to
clarify the applicable P/Ns, address spare parts, and address parts
installed on-condition prior to December 7, 2015. AD CF-2016-01R2 also
includes a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Comments

    After the NPRM was published, the FAA received comments from one
commenter.

Request

    Bell Textron, Inc., commented that this AD omits Bell Helicopter
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 429-15-16 Rev. B, dated June 15, 2016 (ASB
429-15-16 Rev. B), which was issued after Bell Helicopter ASB 429-15-
26, dated December 7, 2015 (ASB 429-15-26). The FAA acknowledges that
ASB 429-15-16 Rev. B and ASB 429-15-26 specify procedures for the same
part-numbered T/R links. However, the two service information documents
address different unsafe conditions, specifically ASB 429-15-16 Rev. B
addresses wear and ASB 429-15-26 addresses corrosion. Accordingly, the
two different unsafe conditions are addressed in two separate ADs. The
unsafe condition of wear (ASB 429-15-16 Rev. B) is addressed in AD
2019-11-05, Amendment 39-19651 (84 FR 26546, June 7, 2019) (``AD 2019-
11-05''). The unsafe condition of corrosion (ASB 429-15-26) is
addressed in this AD. The FAA did not change this AD based on this
comment.
    Bell Textron, Inc., commented that this AD differs from ASB 429-15-
16 Rev. B and ASB 429-15-26 by requiring removal of the sealant around
the bearing every 12 months and an inspection of the chamfer with a 10X
magnifying lens. Bell Textron, Inc., stated that since ASB 429-15-16
Rev. B ``requires'' a repetitive 50 flight hours inspection of the
sealant for pin holes and voids, it does not feel the repetitive 12
month inspection with the sealant removed is necessary. The FAA
disagrees. Procedures specified in related service information
documents are not required unless mandated by an AD. And while AD 2019-
11-05 mandates the repetitive inspection of the sealant condition for
pin holes and voids specified in ASB 429-15-16 Rev. B, the FAA
determined an inspection with the sealant removed at a longer-term
repetitive interval is necessary. Since sealant could become damaged,
not maintain seal, or become worn, this more in-depth inspection
addresses corrosion and pitting that could build up underneath the
sealant. The FAA did not change this AD based on this comment.
    Bell Textron, Inc., commented that not requiring part re-
identification makes it more complicated to manage configurations. The
FAA does not prohibit re-identifying the T/R links as specified in ASB
429-15-26; however, the FAA determined it unnecessary to require to
address the unsafe condition since the repetitive inspections are
required for all part-numbered links listed in the applicability. The
FAA did not change this AD based on this comment.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA has reviewed the relevant information and determined that
an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type design and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for
editorial changes. The website URL for Bell and the email address for
requesting an alternative method of compliance have changed and have
been updated in this final rule. Additionally, the paragraph cross-
referencing formatting in the Required Actions paragraph has changed to
meet current publication requirements, e.g., ``(f)(3)(i) and
(f)(3)(ii)'' has changed to ``(f)(3)(i) and (ii)'' instead. These
editorial changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in
the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The design
approval holder 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.

Differences Between This AD and the Transport Canada AD

    This AD applies to helicopters with certain link P/Ns installed,
whereas the Transport Canada AD applies to helicopters with certain
serial numbers instead. This AD requires inspecting the bearing bores
for any pitting after cleaning the T/R link, while the Transport Canada
AD requires inspecting for corrosion after cleaning the T/R link. This
AD requires performing the inspections with 10X or higher
magnification, while the Transport Canada AD does not specify any
magnification. This AD does not require re-identifying the P/N of the

link, whereas the Transport Canada AD does. The Transport Canada AD
also provides a terminating action to the repetitive sealant
inspection, while this AD does not. This AD also requires a repetitive
inspection with the corrosion preventative sealant removed and
reapplied, whereas the Transport Canada AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed ASB 429-15-26, which advises of reports of
corrosion on T/R links between the roll staked lip of bearing P/N 429-
312-107-103 and the beveled edge of T/R link P/Ns 429-012-112-101/-103.
ASB 429-15-26 specifies inspecting each T/R link bearing bore between
the roll staked lip of the bearing outer race and the link bearing bore
with 10X magnification for corrosion and if there is corrosion,
replacing the link. If there is no corrosion, ASB 429-15-26 specifies
cleaning the area and performing a second inspection with 10X
magnification for corrosion. If there is corrosion, ASB 429-15-26
specifies replacing the link. If there is no corrosion, ASB 429-15-26
specifies removing the torque stripe, cleaning the area, and applying
corrosion preventative sealant. ASB 429-15-26 also specifies re-
identifying the P/Ns as 429-012-112-101FM/-103FM. Further, ASB 429-15-
26 specifies a repetitive inspection of the sealant and reapplication
if the sealant is damaged.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 93 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85
per work-hour.
    Inspecting the set of T/R links (eight bearings) for corrosion
takes about one work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter
and $7,905 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Cleaning and
inspecting the set of T/R links for pitting takes about one work-hour
for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter. Replacing a T/R link
requires no additional work-hours after the inspection and required
parts cost $2,739 for an estimated replacement cost of $2,739 per T/R
link. Removing the torque stripe, cleaning, and applying sealant to the
set of T/R links takes about one work-hour with a negligible parts cost
for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter. Inspecting the sealant on
a set of T/R links takes about one work-hour for an estimated cost of
$85 per helicopter and $7,905 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
    According to Bell Helicopter's service information, some of the
costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage by Bell Helicopter. Accordingly, the FAA has included all
costs in this cost estimate.

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.

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-02-06, Amendment 39-18387
(81 FR 5367, February 2, 2016); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2020-17-10 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited: Amendment 39-
21215; Docket No. FAA-2019-0589; Product Identifier 2017-SW-020-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited Model
429 helicopters with a tail rotor (T/R) pitch link assembly (link)
part number (P/N) 429-012-112-101, -101FM, -103, -103FM, -111, -
111FM, -113, or -113FM installed, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a T/R link.
This condition could result in loss of T/R flight control and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-02-06, Amendment 39-18387 (81 FR 5367,
February 2, 2016).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 21, 2020.

(e) 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.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) For T/R link P/N 429-012-112-101 and -103, within 10 hours
time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Remove each T/R link. Prior to cleaning the T/R link bearing
bores, using 10X or higher power magnification, inspect each T/R
link bearing bore for aluminum oxide corrosion extruding from
between the roll staked lip of the bearing outer race and the link
bearing bore. Aluminum oxide corrosion appears as a white
crystalline material in contrast with the black finish and any
accumulated soot. An example of this corrosion is shown in Figure 1
of Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 429-15-26, dated December
7, 2015 (ASB 429-15-26).
    (ii) If there is any aluminum oxide corrosion, replace the T/R
link before further flight.
    (iii) If there is no aluminum oxide corrosion, clean each T/R
link bearing bore with isopropyl alcohol, and using 10X or higher
power magnification, inspect each cleaned T/R link for pitting.

    (A) If there is any pitting, replace the T/R link before further
flight.
    (B) If there is no pitting, apply corrosion preventative sealant
by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 5. of Part
I, of ASB 429-15-26.
    (2) For all T/R link P/Ns listed in paragraph (a) of this AD,
within 50 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50
hours TIS, using 10X or higher power magnification, inspect each T/R
link bearing bore for missing corrosion preventative sealant. If any
corrosion preventative sealant is missing, perform the actions in
paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD before further flight.
    (3) For all T/R link P/Ns listed in paragraph (a) of this AD,
within 12 months since date of manufacture, except if paragraphs
(f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD have already been done for T/R
link P/N 429-012-112-101 or -103 within the last 12 months and
except if paragraph (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD have already been
done for T/R link P/N 429-012-112-101FM, -103FM, -111, -111FM, -113,
or -113FM within the last 12 months; and thereafter for all T/R link
P/Ns listed in paragraph (a) of this AD at intervals not to exceed
12 months:
    (i) Remove each T/R link; and
    (ii) Remove all corrosion preventative sealant, and perform the
actions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD:
    (i) Do not install T/R link P/N 429-012-112-101 or -103 on any
helicopter before complying with the actions in paragraphs (f)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this AD.
    (ii) Do not install T/R link P/N 429-012-112-101FM, 103FM, -111,
111FM, -113, or -113FM on any helicopter before complying with the
actions in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Scott Franke,
Aviation Safety Engineer, International Validation Branch, Aviation
and Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
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.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD No.
CF-2016-01R2, dated April 12, 2017. You may view the Transport
Canada AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FAA-2019-0589.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6400, Tail Rotor
System.

(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
February 2, 2016 (81 FR 5367, February 2, 2016).
    (i) Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 429-15-26, dated
December 7, 2015.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel,
Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 450-433-
0272; or at https://www.bellcustomer.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 10, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-17779 Filed 8-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8927]
[DOCID:fr15fe08-130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on December 6, 2007 [72 FR 68955].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Markus Price at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Rulemaking (NVS-121), 202-366-
0098. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W43-472, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: 49 CFR 571.125, Warning Devices.
    OMB Number: 2127-0506.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 3011, 30112, and 30117 (Appendix 1) of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1996, authorizes the
issuance of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The
Secretary is authorized to issue, amend, and revoke such rules and
regulations as she/he deems necessary. Using this authority, the agency
issued FMVSS no.125, ``Warning Devices'' (Appendix 2), which applies to
devices, without self contained energy sources, that are designed to be
carried mandatory in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds and voluntarily in other
vehicles. These devices are used to warn approaching traffic of the
presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be
permanently affixed to the vehicles.
    Affected Public: Business or other-for-profit organizations.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A Comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

    Issued: February 8, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-2855 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3856-3859]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0028; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-228-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200,
-200C, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This proposed AD would result in all airplanes having new
relays with a ground fault interrupter (GFI) feature. This proposed AD
would require, depending on airplane configuration, doing certain
wiring changes, replacing the fuel pump power control relays for the
main, center and auxiliary tanks, as applicable, with new relays having
a GFI feature, performing certain bonding resistance measurements, and
modifying relay module assemblies. The proposed AD also would require
revising the maintenance program to incorporate Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) 28-AWL-23 (for Model 737-100, 737-200, and 737-200C
series airplanes), and 28-AWL-22 (for Model 737-300, 737-400, and 737-
500 series airplanes). This proposed AD results from fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are proposing this AD to
prevent damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing that could
introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact:
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0028;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-228-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.
    As part of an SFAR88 analysis, Boeing determined that the power
control relays for the main tank fuel boost pumps, the center tank fuel
boost pumps, and for certain airplanes, the auxiliary tank fuel boost
pumps should be replaced with new relays having a ground fault
interrupter (GFI) feature. The relays are located in the P6 circuit
breaker panel in the flight compartment. The GFI relay feature is
intended to protect the fuel boost pumps from damage caused from
electrical arcing by removing electrical power from the pump if a
ground fault is detected. Electrical arcing, if not prevented could
introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212,
Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010. Depending on airplane configuration
and on whether the actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, were accomplished, Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, describes
procedures for the following actions, depending on airplane
configurations:
     Doing wiring changes,
     Replacing the fuel pump power control relays for the main,
center and auxiliary tanks with new relays having a GFI feature,
     Doing certain bonding resistance measurements to verify
certain bonding requirements are met, and
     Modifying the M181, M182, M183 relay module assemblies.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August
27, 2010, specifies a compliance time of 60 months for replacing the
power control relays.
    For certain airplanes, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212,
Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service
Bulletin 65-49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an
additional source of guidance for doing the modification of the relay
module assemblies and bond resistance measurements.
    In addition, we have reviewed Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/
300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance

Requirements, D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009 (hereafter referred to as
``Document D6-38278-CMR''). Document D6-38278-CMR describes, among
other actions, new AWLs for the applicable fuel boost pumps that
incorporate ground fault interrupter relays for certain Model 737-100,
-200, and -200C airplanes (i.e., AWL 28-AWL-23), and for certain other
Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes (i.e., AWL 28-AWL-22). The AWL
reference to boost pumps applies also to all pumps where the GFI has
been installed by incorporating Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
28A1212.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously, except as described under
``Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.''

Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    AWL 28-AWL-23 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009, is
applicable to Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes, although it
specifies only the Model 737-100 and -200 airplanes.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 750 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
               Action                     Work hours        Average labor       Parts         Cost per product       registered          Fleet cost
                                                            rate per hour                                             airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of power control relays  4 to 9 \1\..........             $85         $14,500  $14,840 to $15,265 \1\             750  $11,130,000 to
                                                                                $11,448,750.\1\
Modification.......................  5...................              85               0  $425..................             750  $318,750.
Maintenance program revision.......  1...................              85               0  $85...................             750  $63,750.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on airplane configuration.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0028; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-228-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 7, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (m) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to prevent the damage to the fuel pumps caused by electrical arcing
that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank, which, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Part 1: Wiring Changes, Relay Replacements, and Certain Bonding
Resistance Measurements for Certain Airplanes

    (g) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has not been incorporated as of the
effective date of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date
of this AD, do the applicable action required by paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes without the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay
modules installed: Do the wiring changes; replace the fuel pump
power control relays for the main, center, and auxiliary tanks, as
applicable, with new relays having a ground fault interrupter (GFI)
feature; and do certain bonding resistance measurements to verify
that certain bonding requirements are met; in accordance with Part 1
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.
    (2) Airplanes with the M181, M182, and M183 supplier relay
modules installed: Modify the M181, M182, and M183 relay module
assemblies, and do certain bonding resistance measurements to verify
that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 1
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.

    Note 2:  Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1,
dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 65-
49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an additional
source of guidance for doing the modification and certain bonding
resistance measurements.

Part 2: Wiring Changes and Certain Bonding Measurements for Certain
Airplanes

    (h) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has been incorporated as of the
effective date of this AD, and on which the M181, M182, and M183
supplier relay modules have not been installed: Within 60 months
after the effective date of this AD, do the wiring changes and
certain bonding measurements to verify that certain bonding
requirements are met, in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.

Part 3: Certain Bonding Measurements for Certain Airplanes

    (i) For airplanes on which Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
28A1212, dated July 23, 2009, has been incorporated as of the
effective date of this AD, and that the M181, M182, and M183
supplier relay modules are installed: Within 60 months after the
effective date of this AD, do certain bonding measurements to verify
that certain bonding requirements are met, in accordance with Part 3
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010.

    Note 3:  Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1212, Revision 1,
dated August 27, 2010, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 65-
49808-24-01, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2010, as an additional
source of guidance for doing the modification and certain bonding
resistance measurements.

Maintenance Program Revisions

    (j) Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, as applicable, or within 30
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
revise the maintenance program by incorporating the applicable
airworthiness limitation (AWL) specified in paragraph (j)(1) or
(j)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes:
Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-23 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/
200/200C/300/400/500 AWL and Certification Maintenance Requirements
(CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009. The initial
compliance time for the actions specified in AWL 28-AWL-23 is within
1 year after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph
(g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: AWL 28-
AWL-22 of Section 9 of Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2009. The
initial compliance time for the actions specified in AWL 28-AWL-22
is within 1 year after accomplishing the installation required by
paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 1 year after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Interval

    (k) After accomplishment of the action required by paragraph
(g), (h), or (i) of this AD, as applicable, no alternative
inspections or inspection intervals may be used, unless the
inspections or intervals are approved as an alternative means of
compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(m) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Earlier Revisions of
AWLs

    (l) Revising the maintenance program to incorporate AWLs 28-AWL-
22 (for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes) and 28-AWL-23 (for
Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes) in accordance with
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of AD 2008-10-09 R1, amendment 39-
16148, terminates the requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch,
ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6482; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Or, e-mail information to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2011.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-1226 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 12252]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04831]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
6, 2014 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined
that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
adjudicatory matters; and
other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 28, 2014.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04831 Filed 2-28-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41803]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16617]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0757]

Establishment of a Public Docket for Comment on the Report
Prepared Under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation
Act Section 1138

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Establishment of docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
establishment of a public docket for comments pertaining to the report
mandated under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation
Act (FDASIA) Section 1138, enacted July 9, 2012, and posted on the FDA
Web site on July 9, 2013. This docket is intended to solicit input on
this report from all relevant stakeholders.

DATES: Submit electronic or written comments by September 9, 2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonca Bull, Office of Minority Health,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm.
4274, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 9, 2012, President Obama signed FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144)
into law. Section 1138 of FDASIA requires that FDA review and modify,
as necessary, the FDA communication plan to inform and educate health
care providers and patients on the benefits and risks of medical
products, with particular focus on underrepresented subpopulations,
including racial subgroups.
    Section 1138 of FDASIA requires that FDA shall publicly post the
communication plan on the Internet Web site of the Office of Minority
Health of FDA, and provide links to any other appropriate Internet Web
site, and seek public comment on the communication plan.
    FDA is opening a docket for 60 days to solicit input from all
relevant stakeholders regarding the communication plan and Internet
links. This docket is intended to ensure that stakeholders have an
opportunity to provide comments for further improvements to the plan.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov and may be
seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.

    Dated: July 5, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-16617 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8875-8876]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1113]

Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug Current Good
Manufacturing Process: Questions and Answers; Guidance for Industry;
Availability; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a notice
entitled ``Data Integrity and Compliance With Drug CGMP: Questions and
Answers; Guidance for Industry; Availability'' that appeared in the
Federal Register of December 13, 2018. The document announced the
availability of a guidance for industry. The document was published
with the incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.
Previously submitted comments will be transferred to the correct docket
number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Takahashi, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 6686,

Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Thursday,
December 13, 2018 (83 FR 64132), in FR Doc. 2018-26957, the following
correction is made:
    On page 64132, in the first column, in the header of the document,
``[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-3984]'' is corrected to read ``[Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-1113].''

    Dated: March 6, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-04431 Filed 3-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70443-70444]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0793; FRL-9327-4]

Decision on Waiver Application From 3M

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA conditionally granted the request from 3M for a waiver
from testing tetrabromobisphenol A (CASRN 79-94-7). Regulations issued
by EPA under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act require that
specified chemical substances be tested to determine if they are
contaminated with halogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HDDs) or halogenated
dibenzofurans (HDFs), and that results be reported to EPA. However, the
regulations allow for exclusion and waiver from these requirements if
an appropriate application is submitted to EPA and is approved. EPA
received such a request for a waiver from these testing requirements
from 3M.

DATES: EPA conditionally granted the 3M waiver on November 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Rebecca Edelstein, National Program Chemicals Division, Office
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
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?

    This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the
Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this
action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action
applies directly to the submitter of the request for waiver, 3M. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0793. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces the conditional granting of the request from
3M for a waiver from testing under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(i) for
tetrabromobisphenol A (CASRN 79-94-7). This waiver is conditional on 3M
manufacturing (including importing) no more than 100 kilograms (kg) of
the chemical substance per year, and on its doing so solely for
research and development purposes.

III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Under 40 CFR part 766, EPA requires testing of certain chemical
substances to determine whether they may be contaminated with HDDs and
HDFs. Under 40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(i), a waiver may be granted if a
responsible company official certifies that the chemical substance is
produced only in quantities of 100 kg or less per year, and only for
research and development purposes.
    Under 40 CFR 766.32(b), a request for a waiver must be made 60 days
before resumption of manufacture or importation of a chemical substance
not being manufactured, imported, or processed as of June 5, 1987.
    On September 14, 2011, EPA received a waiver request from 3M under
40 CFR 766.32(a)(2)(i). EPA announced receipt of the 3M waiver request
and requested public comment in the Federal Register issue of September
27, 2011 (76 FR 59699)
    (FRL-8890-4). The waiver request from 3M indicates that 3M intends
to import less than 100 kg of tetrabromobisphenol A (CASRN 79-94-7), a
chemical substance subject to testing under 40 CFR part 766, as part of
an experimental formulation for research and development purposes. In a
subsequent email message, dated September 27, 2011, 3M confirmed that
the chemical substance will solely be used for research and development
purposes.
    EPA has determined that 3M qualifies for a research and development
waiver from testing for tetrabromobisphenol A, conditional on 3M
manufacturing (including importing) no more than 100

kg of the chemical substance per year, and on its doing so solely for
research and development purposes.
    EPA received an anonymous comment on 3M's waiver request stating
that EPA should deny the waiver request; however, the commenter did not
provide any rationale for why EPA should deny 3M's request.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Dibenzofurans, Dioxins, Hazardous
substances, Tetrabromobisphenol A.

    Dated: November 7, 2011.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2011-29301 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P