[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69134-69138]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0472; Project Identifier 2018-CE-060-AD; Amendment
39-21295; AD 2020-21-22]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Models 180, 180A, 180B, 180C, 180D,
180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, 180K, 182, 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 185,
185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, and A185F airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report of cracks found in the tailcone and horizontal
stabilizer attachment structure. This AD requires inspecting the
tailcone and horizontal stabilizer for corrosion and cracks and
repairing or replacing damaged parts as necessary. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 7, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 7,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Textron Aviation Customer Service, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita,
Kansas 67277,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: https://txtav.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0472.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0472; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Shawn, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or d087b9b3b8b9a4b1fd939f8390b6b1b1feb7bfa6.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Textron Aviation
Inc. (Textron) (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft
Company) Models 180, 180A, 180B, 180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H,
180J, 180K, 182, 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D,
185E, A185E, and A185F airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 14, 2020 (85 FR 28890). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of cracks found in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer
attachment structure on a Textron Model 185 airplane. The FAA
discovered similar conditions on 29 additional Textron 180 and 185
series airplanes and determined that the combination of the attachment
structure design and high loads during landing contribute to the
development of cracks in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer
attachment structure. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the
tailcone and horizontal stabilizer for corrosion, cracks, and loose or
sheared rivets and repairing or replacing damaged parts as necessary.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the horizontal
stabilizer to tailcone attachment, which could lead to tail separation
with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing

this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Two individual commenters supported the NPRM.

Request To Clarify Why the AD Is Necessary

    Three individual commenters requested the FAA clarify why an AD is
necessary. The commenters stated the proposed inspection is already
performed at every annual inspection. One of these commenters stated
the current service bulletin is also sufficient to address this issue,
and unlike the seat rail AD, which was necessary to remove subjective
interpretation from the inspection measurements, this issue is more
objective. The FAA infers that the commenter is referring to AD 2011-
10-09, Amendment 39-16690 (76 FR 27865, May 13, 2011).
    The FAA disagrees. Although 14 CFR 43.15 and Appendix D to Part 43
do require that 100-hour and annual inspections include an inspection
of the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure, this AD
requires an inspection directed towards specific areas with a history
of cracking. Data obtained during evaluation of this unsafe condition
indicated that the current routine maintenance and inspection
procedures alone are not adequate to address it. Also, while an
operator may incorporate into its maintenance program the inspections
in the service bulletin referenced by the commenters, not all operators
are required to do so. In order for these inspections to become
mandatory, and to correct the unsafe conditions identified in the NPRM,
the FAA must issue an AD. The compliance times as proposed should allow
the inspections to be completed during the annual/100 hour inspection,
thereby minimizing the costs on operators.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on these
comments.

Request To Address Cause of the Cracking

    An individual commenter requested the AD address the cause of the
cracking instead of changing the affected parts so that the cycle time
between inspections could be increased. As examples, the commenter
stated that if the cause is vibration, then propeller balance should be
required to correct the vibration; if the cause is corrosion, then
corrosion prevention should be required.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA determined that a combination of the
attachment structure design and the high design loads during landing
contribute to the development of cracks in the tailcone and horizontal
stabilizer attachment structure. The FAA evaluated the failures and
determined that the appropriate corrective action was to replace the
parts if corrosion or cracks are detected during the inspection. The
FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on this comment.

Request Change to Applicability

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) requested the FAA
clarify why the proposed AD applies to Model 182-series airplanes,
because the airplanes found with cracking and corrosion damage were
Textron Model 180- and 185-series airplanes that have a different
landing gear configuration with higher loads during landing. Citing the
same or similar reasons, three individual commenters requested that the
proposed AD not apply to Model 182-series airplanes.
    The FAA agrees to provide additional information explaining why the
proposed AD would apply to Model 182-series airplanes. While the
landing stresses for the Model 182-series are not equal to that of the
Model 180- and 185-series, the FAA determined that the development of
cracks in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure
is a combination of landing stresses and the attachment structure
design. Models 182 through 182D airplanes have the same tailcone design
as Model 185-series airplanes. After the FAA issued an Airworthiness
Concern Sheet about this issue on February 8, 2017, requesting
information on Model 180- and 185-series airplanes, Textron released
Single Engine Mandatory Service Letter SEL-55-01, dated December 7,
2017 (SEL-55-01), which included Models 182 through 182D. Inspection
results from SEL-55-01 have included multiple reports of cracking on
Models 182 through 182D.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on these
comments.
    Another individual commenter requested the proposed AD require
inspections for Model 182-series airplanes that have been converted to
tail wheel airplanes and not require inspections for Model 180- and
185-series airplanes on floats, if the cause is vibration from
landings.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA has determined that the development of
cracks in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure
is a combination of the attachment structure design and high landing
loads. The high loads encountered during landing are not specifically
the result of vibration. Data obtained during evaluation of the unsafe
condition identified cracking on aircraft with and without floats.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on this
comment.
    The same individual commenter also requested the proposed AD not
apply to lower time airplanes, such as those with 3,000 hours or less.
The commenter did not provide justification for this request.
    The FAA disagrees. This AD was proposed to address corrosion and
cracks in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure.
As corrosion may develop over time, regardless of how many flight hours
the airplane accumulates, the commenter's suggestion, if adopted, would
not adequately address the unsafe condition.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on this
comment.

Request for Credit for Previous Actions

    AOPA and two individual commenters requested the FAA revise
paragraph (h) of the AD to allow credit for previous actions performed
by using SEL-55-01 if the airplane was also inspected for loose or
sheared rivets. The commenters suggested there are no significant
differences between SEL-55-01 and the proposed AD. AOPA also requested
credit for actions performed during the prior annual inspection.
    The FAA agrees that operators may take credit for previous
compliance with SEL-55-01; however, a change to the AD is unnecessary.
Paragraph (f) of this AD requires compliance unless already done. Thus,
the AD already allows credit for the initial inspection specified in
SEL-55-01 if completed before the effective date of the AD. Similarly,
operators may take credit for actions performed during the prior annual
inspection if those actions are identical to the procedures specified
in SEL-55-01.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on these
comments.

Request To Delay Issuance of AD

    An anonymous commenter requested the FAA delay issuing the AD to
allow more research into the problem and solutions. The commenter
stated that the AD is too invasive and that removing and replacing the
tail every 500 hours could be far more dangerous to the airplane than
the cracks.

    The FAA disagrees. The AD does not require removing the tail in
order to complete the visual inspection. SEL-55-01 provides
instructions to gain access to the inspection area without removal of
the tail. The FAA has received feedback from operators that this
inspection has been completed during annual maintenance. No delay in
the effective date of the AD is warranted.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on this
comment.

Comment Concerning Potential Causes of Damage

    AOPA requested the FAA clarify whether all causes of potential
damage have been scrutinized. AOPA suggested that other sources of
damage to the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer area attachment
structure, such as wear from ground personnel moving the aircraft by
the horizontal stabilizer, may have resulted in the cracking and
corrosion discovered.
    The FAA agrees to provide additional information. Damage to the
tailcone and horizontal stabilizer could be a result of ground
personnel moving the aircraft by the horizontal stabilizer. In
addition, high loads due to a number of potential causes in combination
with the attachment structure design could result in damage to the
tailcone and horizontal stabilizer. However, even if the FAA could
identify the exact sources of high loads, it would not likely alter the
actions required by the AD to correct the identified unsafe condition.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on this
comment.

Comment Concerning Parts

    An anonymous commenter stated that parts to repair are not
available. The commenter did not provide supporting data with this
comment.
    The FAA is not aware of the unavailability of replacement parts. To
the extent operators may have difficulty obtaining replacement parts,
the FAA cannot base its AD action on whether spare parts are available
or can be produced. While every effort is made to avoid grounding
aircraft, the FAA must address the identified unsafe condition.
    The FAA did not make any changes to the proposed AD based on this
comment.

Request Regarding Costs

    One individual commenter requested the FAA require that Textron
provide a service kit that addresses the design flaw and assists with
the costs mandated by the AD. The commenter stated that this AD focuses
on a known vulnerable area in all tail wheeled Cessna aircraft, caused
by a systemic design flaw that is a major safety of flight condition.
    The FAA, as a federal agency, is responsible for all directives,
policies, and mandates issued under its authority. The FAA does not
have the authority to require a manufacturer to bear AD costs incurred
in modifying or repairing privately-owned aircraft. The general
obligation of the operator to maintain its aircraft in an airworthy
condition is vital, but sometimes expensive. If the manufacturer
determines it will cover the cost of implementing a particular action,
then the manufacturer does so voluntarily. The FAA did not make any
changes to the proposed AD based on this comment.

Comment Regarding the Service Information

    An individual commenter stated the proposed AD does not reference
or coincide with Cessna Supplemental Inspection Document 53-10-01,
which covers the tailcone inspection.
    The commenter's statement does not include a suggestion specific to
the AD or a request the FAA can act on. The FAA did not make any
changes to the proposed AD based on this comment.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Textron Aviation Single Engine Mandatory Service
Letter SEL-55-01, dated December 7, 2017. The service information
contains procedures for inspecting the stabilizer hinge brackets,
tailcone reinforcement angles, corner reinforcements, stabilizer hinge
reinforcement channel, stabilizer hinge assemblies, stabilizer aft spar
reinforcement, and the lower half of the stabilizer aft spar from
station (STA) 16 on the left side of the stabilizer aft spar to STA 16
on the right side for cracks and corrosion. 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.

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The service information applies to airplanes with more than 3,000
total hours time-in-service or 10 years in service, while this AD
applies regardless of the airplane's time-in-service. This AD requires
inspecting for and replacing loose or sheared rivets, which is not
specified in the service information.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 6,586 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost           product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  2 work-hours x $85    Not applicable......            $170       $1,119,620
                                     per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace left-hand (LH) stabilizer hinge         4 work-hours x $85 per workhour             $551            $891
 bracket.                                        = $340.
Replace right-hand (RH) stabilizer hinge        4 work-hours x $85 per workhour              530             870
 bracket.                                        = $340.

Replace LH tailcone reinforcement angle.......  12 work-hours x $85 per workhour           2,291           3,311
                                                 = $1,020.
Replace RH tailcone reinforcement angle.......  12 work-hours x $85 per workhour           3,006           4,026
                                                 = $1,020.
Replace LH corner reinforcement...............  6 work-hours x $85 per workhour              169             679
                                                 = $510.
Replace RH corner reinforcement...............  6 work-hours x $85 per workhour              390             900
                                                 = $510.
Replace LH stabilizer hinge reinforcement       6 work-hours x $85 per workhour               99             609
 channel.                                        = $510.
Replace RH stabilizer hinge reinforcement       6 work-hours x $85 per workhour               99             609
 channel.                                        = $510.
Replace LH stabilizer hinge assembly..........  1 work-hours x $85 per workhour              570             655
                                                 = $85.
Replace RH stabilizer hinge assembly..........  1 work-hours x $85 per workhour              694             779
                                                 = $85.
Replace LH stabilizer aft spar reinforcement..  (*).............................             825             825
Replace RH stabilizer aft spar reinforcement..  (*).............................             466             466
Replace stabilizer aft spar...................  28* work-hours x $85 per                     563           2,943
(* includes work-hour cost for replacing         workhour = $2,380.
 stabilizer aft spar reinforcement parts).
Remove and replace horizontal and vertical      8 work-hours x $85 per workhour   Not applicable             680
 stabilizers and rig flight controls.            = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since corrosion may affect any or all of the parts subject to the
inspection in this AD differently and the severity of the corrosion on
each part would affect the time necessary to correct the condition, the
FAA has no way to determine an overall cost per product for removing
the corrosion. Similarly, loose or sheared rivets may also affect any
or all of the parts subject to the inspection in this AD differently,
and the time necessary to correct the condition on each product would
be different. Therefore, the FAA has no way to determine an overall
cost per product for replacing loose or sheared rivets.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-21-22 Textron Aviation Inc.: Amendment 39-21295; Docket No.
FAA-2020-0472; Project Identifier 2018-CE-060-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 7, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (type certificate
previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Models 180, 180A, 180B,
180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, 180K, 182, 182A, 182B,
182C, 182D, 185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, and A185F
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage; 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks found in the tailcone
and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure. The FAA is issuing
this AD to detect and correct corrosion and cracks in the tailcone
and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the
horizontal stabilizer to tailcone attachment, which could lead to
tail separation with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspect, Repair, and Replace

    Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and thereafter
every 500 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever occurs first, visually
inspect each stabilizer hinge bracket, tailcone reinforcement angle,
corner reinforcement, stabilizer hinge reinforcement channel,
stabilizer hinge assembly, stabilizer aft spar reinforcement, and
the lower half of the stabilizer aft spar from station (STA) 16 on
the left side to STA 16 on the right side for corrosion and cracks;
remove any corrosion; and replace any part with a crack by following
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 9 through 11 and 13, of
Textron Aviation Single Engine Mandatory Service Letter SEL-55-01,
dated December 7, 2017. Also inspect for loose rivets and sheared

rivets. If there is a loose or sheared rivet, before further flight,
replace the rivet.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD within
the previous 5 years or 500 hours TIS, whichever was the most
recent, in accordance with the procedures specified in the documents
listed in paragraphs (h)(i) through (viii) of this AD as applicable
to your airplane are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions in paragraph (g) of this AD. The time between
any inspection for which credit is allowed by this paragraph and the
next inspection accomplished in accordance with paragraph (g) of
this AD must not exceed 500 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever occurs
first.
    (i) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 Series (1953-1962) Service
Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 53-10-01, D138-1-13
Temporary Revision Number 8, dated May 18, 2015.
    (ii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 Series (1963-1968)
Service Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 53-10-01, D637-1-13
Temporary Revision Number 10, dated May 18, 2015;
    (iii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/185 Series (1969-1980)
Service Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 53-10-01, D2000-9-13
Temporary Revision Number 9, dated May 18, 2015.
    (iv) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/185 Series (1981-1985)
Service Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 53-10-01, D2067-1TR9
Temporary Revision Number 9, dated May 1, 2016.
    (v) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 Series (1953-1962) Service
Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 55-10-01, D138-1-13
Temporary Revision Number 7, dated December 1, 2011.
    (vi) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 100 Series (1963-1968)
Service Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 55-10-01, D637-1-13
Temporary Revision Number 9, dated December 1, 2011.
    (vii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/185 Series (1969-1980)
Service Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 55-10-01, D2000-9-13
Temporary Revision Number 7, dated December 1, 2011.
    (viii) Cessna Aircraft Company Model 180/185 Series (1981-1985)
Service Manual, Supplemental Inspection Number: 55-10-01, D2067-1-13
Temporary Revision Number 7, dated December 1, 2011.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (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.

 (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tara Shawn,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or baedd3d9d2d3cedb97f9f5e9fadcdbdb94ddd5cc.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Textron Aviation Single Engine Mandatory Service Letter SEL-
55-01, dated December 7, 2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Textron Aviation service information identified in this
AD, contact Textron Aviation Customer Service, P.O. Box 7706,
Wichita, Kansas 67277,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet: https://txtav.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 8, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-24046 Filed 10-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6141-6142]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6916-011]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To
Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and
Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions: City
and County of Denver, Colorado

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for Non-capacity Amendment and
Conversion of License to an Exemption of Small Hydroelectric Power
Project from Licensing.
    b. Project No: P-6916-011.
    c. Date Filed: January 4, 2019.
    d. Applicant: City and County of Denver, Colorado (Denver Water).
    e. Name of Project: Strontia Springs Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the South Platte River, in
Douglas and Jefferson Counties, Colorado.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Brian Gogas, Denver Water, 1600 West 12th
Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Zeena Aljibury,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice by the
Commission; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of
this notice by the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-6916-011.
    k. Description of Request: City and County of Denver proposes to
upgrade its turbine generator unit, which would increase the total
installed capacity of the project to 1.25-MW, and to convert its
license to an exemption. Denver Water is also proposing to construct a
new switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse, and to adjust the existing
project boundary to include the primary power line. During
construction, the project would continue to operate normally, without
any changes to the surface area, surface elevation, or existing
impoundment. The construction activities are expected to take
approximately three years to complete.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number P-6916 in the docket number field to access the
documents. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS,

PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the
heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or
protests should relate to project works which are the subject of the
license amendment. Agencies may obtain copies of the application
directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to
intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant
specified in the particular application. If an intervener files
comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an
issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource
agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource
agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: February 19, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03266 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50500-50502]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0718; Special Conditions No. 25-705-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 777-8 and 777-9
Airplanes; Design Roll Maneuver for Electronic Flight Controls

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes. These airplanes will have a
novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-
category airplanes. This design feature is an electronic flight-control
system (EFCS) that provides control of the airplane through pilot
inputs to the flight computer. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Boeing on November 1, 2017. We must
receive your comments by December 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0718
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Freisthler, FAA, Airframe and
Cabin Safety Branch, AIR-675, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior
instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA finds it is
unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause
exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the
Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to
submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment described above. We invite interested people
to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or
views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On April 19, 2017 (for the Model 777-8 airplane), and May 12, 2015
(for the 777-9 airplane), Boeing applied for an amendment to Type
Certificate (TC) No. T00001SE to include the new Model 777-8 and 777-9
airplanes. These airplanes are derivatives of the Model 777-300ER
airplane currently approved under TC No. T00001SE. The Model 777-9 is a
stretched-fuselage, large, twin-engine airplane with seating for 408
passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.
    The Model 777-8, a shortened-body derivative of the 777-9, is a
large, twin-engine airplane with seating for 359 passengers and a
maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes
meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in TC No.
T00001SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design features, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
    An electronic flight-control system that provides control of the
airplane through pilot inputs to the flight computer. Current part 25
airworthiness regulations account for control laws where aileron
deflection is proportional to control-stick deflection. The regulations
do not address nonlinearities, such as situations where output does not
change in the same proportion as input, or other effects on aileron
actuation that may be caused by electronic flight controls.

Discussion

    These special conditions differ from current regulatory
requirements in that they require that the roll maneuver results from
defined movements of the cockpit roll control, as opposed to defined
aileron deflections. These special conditions also require an
additional load condition at design maneuvering speed (VA),
in which the cockpit roll control is returned to neutral following the
initial roll input.
    These special conditions differ from similar special conditions
previously issued on this topic. These special conditions are limited
to the roll axis only, whereas other special conditions also included
pitch and yaw axes. Special conditions are not required for the pitch
or yaw axes, because Sec.  25.331 at Amendment 25-141, and Sec.  25.351
at Amendment 25-91, take into account the effects of an electronic
flight-control system.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Boeing Model 777-8 and 777-9 airplanes.

Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type
certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-8 and 777-9
airplanes.
    In lieu of compliance to 14 CFR 25.349(a), the Model 777-8 and 777-
9 airplanes must comply with the following:
    The following conditions, speeds, and cockpit roll control motions
(except as the motions may be limited by pilot effort) must be
considered in combination with an airplane load factor of zero, and of
two-thirds of the positive maneuvering factor used in design. In
determining the resulting control-surface deflections, the torsional
flexibility of the wing must be considered in accordance with Sec.
25.301(b).
    1. Conditions corresponding to steady rolling velocities must be
investigated. In addition, conditions corresponding to maximum angular
acceleration must be investigated for airplanes with engines or other
weight concentrations outboard of the fuselage. For the angular
acceleration conditions, zero rolling velocity may be assumed in the
absence of a rational time history investigation of the maneuver.
    2. At VA, sudden movement of the cockpit roll control up
to the limit is assumed. The position of the cockpit roll control must
be maintained until a steady roll rate is achieved and then must be
returned suddenly to the neutral position.
    3. At VC, the cockpit roll control must be moved
suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than that
obtained in condition 2, above.
    4. At VD, the cockpit roll control must be moved
suddenly and maintained so as to achieve a roll rate not less than one
third of that obtained in condition 2, above.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 25, 2017.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-23701 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28604]
[DOCID:fr21my10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-66-000]

Southern California Edison Company; Pacific Gas and Electric
Company; San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

May 13, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2010, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Rules
of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission), 18 CFR 385.207 (2010), Southern California Edison
Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric
Company filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, seeking the Commission
to rule that the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC)
Decision 09-12-042 violates the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824, et
seq., and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution
insofar as it sets the rate for electric energy that is sold at
wholesale in interstate commerce by public utilities, and does so
outside the CPUC's authority under the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. 824-a-1, et seq.
    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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 10, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12234 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Placeholder for Confidential Business Information (CBI) submitted by the United States Government per Decision XV/5.  Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Essential Use Nomination.

CBI located at EPA headquarters 1310 L St NW.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14012-14013]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04869]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 189 and 700

[Docket No. FDA-2004-N-0188] (Formerly 2004N-0081)
RIN 0910-AF47

Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics;
Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Interim final rule; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or ``we'') is reopening
the comment period for the interim final rule entitled ``Use of
Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics'' that
published in the Federal Register of July 14, 2004 (69 FR 42256). The
interim final rule prohibited the use of certain cattle material to
address the potential risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in
human food, including dietary supplements, and cosmetics. In the
Federal Register of September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53063), we amended the
interim final rule to make changes, including providing that the small
intestine of cattle, formerly prohibited cattle material, could be used
in human food and cosmetics if the distal ileum was removed by a
specified procedure or one that the establishment could demonstrate is
equally effective in ensuring complete removal of the distal ileum.
Since 2005, peer-reviewed studies have been published showing the
presence of infectivity in the proximal ileum, jejunum, ileocecal
junction, and colon of cattle with BSE. Therefore, we are reopening the
comment period for the interim final rule to give interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the new studies concerning infectivity in
parts of the small intestine other than the distal ileum.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by May 3, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Johnny Braddy, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-316), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of July 14, 2004 (69 FR 42256), FDA
published an interim final rule entitled ``Use of Materials Derived
From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics.'' The interim final rule
prohibited the use of certain cattle material to address the potential
risk of BSE in human food and cosmetics. The interim final rule
designated the small intestine as prohibited cattle material and
prohibited its use in human food or cosmetics. In the Federal Register
of September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53063), we amended the interim final rule
to allow the use of the small intestine if the distal ileum is removed
by a procedure that removes at least 80 inches of uncoiled and trimmed
small intestine as measured from the ceco-colic junction and
progressing proximally towards the jejunum or by a procedure that the
establishment can demonstrate is equally effective in ensuring complete
removal of the distal ileum.
    On January 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), issued an interim final rule to
designate materials that could potentially contain BSE infectivity as
specified risk materials (SRMs) and prohibit their use for human food
(see ``Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human
Food and Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled
Cattle''; 69 FR 1862; January 12, 2004). FSIS's interim final rule
designated the distal ileum as an SRM but required that the entire
small intestine be removed and disposed of as inedible to ensure the
effective removal of the distal ileum. On September 7, 2005, FSIS, like
FDA, amended its interim final rule to permit the use of the entire
small intestine for human food if the distal ileum is removed by a
procedure that removes at least 80 inches of the uncoiled and trimmed
small intestine as measured from the ceco-colic junction and
progressing proximally towards the jejunum or by a procedure that the
establishment demonstrates is effective in ensuring complete removal of
the distal ileum.
    When the FDA and FSIS amendments to the interim final rules were
published in 2005, BSE infectivity had been demonstrated in lymphoid
tissue of the distal ileum. In naturally occurring cases, sparse
immunostaining had also been observed in the myenteric plexus of the
distal ileum indicating the presence of PrPSc\,\ a TSE-specific protein
(Ref. 1). Because the myenteric plexus extends throughout the small
intestine, both FDA and FSIS considered that it was possible that
infectivity might also exist in the myenteric plexus of the jejunum or
the duodenum. We stated in our 2005 amendment to our interim final rule
that if we became aware of data indicating that other portions of the
small intestine harbored BSE infectivity, we would take action
appropriate to the public health risk. FSIS stated in its 2005
amendment to its interim final rule that while it believed that the
primary tissues of concern for spreading the BSE agent had been
identified, FSIS would use the results of future studies on BSE to
further refine its policies with regard to BSE (70 FR 53043 at 53047;
September 7, 2005). In 2007, FSIS issued a final rule to make permanent
the interim measures implemented in 2004 and amended in 2005 (72 FR
38700; July 13, 2007).
    Since we amended our interim final rule in 2005 and FSIS issued its
final rule in 2007, peer-reviewed studies have been published showing
the presence of some infectivity in the proximal ileum,

jejunum, ileocecal junction, and colon of cattle with BSE. The new
scientific data confirms the presence of limited amounts of BSE
infectivity in the small intestine outside of the distal ileum of
classical BSE infected cattle under experimental inoculation and field
conditions. The infectivity levels reported in these studies were much
lower than the infectivity levels that were previously demonstrated in
the distal ileum.
    We have added several peer-reviewed studies (Refs. 2 to 6) to the
administrative record. We invite comment on those studies.
    Additionally, the European Food Safety authority (EFSA) Panel on
Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) has reviewed and evaluated new data as it
relates to the BSE epidemiological situation in the European Union. We
have added the EFSA documents to the administrative record as well
(Refs. 7 and 8). We have evaluated the data from the studies. Only
trace amounts of infectivity have been found in the proximal ileum,
jejunum, ileocecal junction, and colon of cattle with naturally
occurring cases of BSE. We tentatively conclude that the effect of
these traces of infectivity on the risk of human or ruminant exposure
to BSE in the United States is negligible. The very low levels of
infectivity in parts of the intestine other than the distal ileum, the
sharp decline in the prevalence of BSE worldwide, FDA's BSE-related
restrictions on the contents of animal food and feed (see 21 CFR
589.2000 and 589.2001), and the extremely low prevalence of BSE within
cattle in the United States due to the presence of effective
mitigations and compliance with international standards suggest that
the risk from parts of the intestine other than the distal ileum is
extremely low. We also note that the World Organization for Animal
Health (formerly known as the Office International des Epizooties or
``OIE'') has not changed its definition of SRMs to include any part of
the small intestine in addition to the distal ileum. Based on this
assessment, we tentatively conclude that requiring the removal of
additional parts of the small intestine would not provide a measurable
risk reduction compared to that already being achieved by removal of
the distal ileum in all cattle and that it would be appropriate to
finalize our interim final rule without changing any provisions related
to the small intestine. We invite comment on this tentative conclusion.

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
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

1. Terry, L.A., S. March, S.J. Ryder, et al., ``Detection of Disease
Specific PrP in the Distal Ileum of Cattle Exposed Orally to the
Agent of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,'' Veterinary Record, vol.
152, pp. 387-392, 2003.
 2. Balkema-Buschmann, A., C. Fast, M. Kaatz, et al., ``Pathogenesis
of Classical and Atypical BSE in Cattle.'' Preventive Veterinary
Medicine, vol. 102, pp. 112-117, 2011.
 3. Hoffmann, C., M. Eiden, M. Kaatz, et al., ``BSE Infectivity in
Jejunum, Ileum and Ileocaecal Junction of Incubating Cattle,''
Veterinary Research, vol. 42, p. 21, 2011.
 4. Kimura K. and M. Haritani, ``Distribution of Accumulated Prion
Protein in a Cow With Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,'' The
Veterinary Record, vol. 162, pp. 822-825, 2008.
 5. Okada H., Y. Iwamaru, M. Imamura, et al. ``Detection of Disease-
Associated Prion Protein in the Posterior Portion of the Small
Intestine Involving the Continuous Peyer's Patch in Cattle Orally
Infected With Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Agent,''
Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 58(4), pp. 333-343, Aug.
2011.
 6. Stack M., S.J. Moore, A. Vidal-Diez, et al. ``Experimental
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Detection of PrP(SC) in the Small
Intestine Relative to Exposure Dose and Age,'' Journal of
Comparative Pathology, vol. 145, pp. 289-301, 2011.
 7. ``European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Biological
Hazards (BIOHAZ),'' EFSA Journal, vol. 1317, pp. 1-9, 2009.
 8. ``European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Biological
Hazards (BIOHAZ),'' EFSA Journal, vol. 9(3), p. 2104, 2011.

    Dated: February 26, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-04869 Filed 3-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29226-29228]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10345]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0131]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays
Within the Fifth Coast Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its safety zones established for
recurring marine events and fireworks displays that take place within
the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility. This action is
necessary to address minor revisions to the listing of events that
informs the public of regularly scheduled fireworks displays that
require additional safety measures provided by regulations. Through
this final rule, the current list of recurring marine events requiring
safety zones will be updated with two additional events that take place
in the Sector Virginia area of responsibility. This regulation
prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zones unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Virginia or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective June 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type Docket
Number USCG-2022-0131 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in
the Document Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Chief, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Virginia, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard regularly updates the regulations for recurring
safety zones within the Fifth Coast Guard District at 33 CFR 165.506,
and its respective tables. These recurring safety zones are for
fireworks displays that take place either on or over the navigable
waters of the Fifth Coast Guard District as defined at 33 CFR 3.25.
These regulations were last amended October 15, 2021 (86 FR 57358).
Since then, two recurring marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard
District have changed in a way that require establishment of a safety
zone for protection of life, property and the environment. Hazards
associated with these events include potential falling debris and
possible fire, explosion, projectile, and burn hazards. The purpose of
this rule is to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the
navigable waters within close proximity to fireworks displays before,
during, and after the scheduled events. In response, on March 20, 2022,
the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled
Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays Within the
Fifth Coast Guard District (87 FR 15347). There we stated why we issued
the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action
related to these fireworks displays. During the comment period that
ended April 19, 2022, we received one comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Virginia
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
fireworks events present a safety concern for anyone within the safety
zones. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the
navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the
scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received one comment on our NPRM published on
March 20, 2022. The commenter was interested in understanding more
about how these safety zones were developed, particularly how the Coast
Guard determined how big each zone needs to be, where they are located,
whether the Coast Guard regulates the types of fireworks used in the
event, and environmental analysis. The Coast Guard creates safety zones
under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Coast Guard carefully
determines the appropriate size of the safety zone using the shell
diameter as a referential factor and uses the National Vessel
Inspection Circular (NVIC) No. 7-02, Marine Safety at Fireworks
Displays, and the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 1123, Code for
Fireworks Display, to determine applicable size of the awarded safety
zone using the established criteria. In general, fireworks shows are
common occurences both on land and on the waterway. The Coast Guard
reviews each individual proposed waterborne event on a case-by-case
basis. Marine event permit applications are submitted to the Coast
Guard by sponsors of proposed marine events. They include a good faith
estimate of spectator craft that are expected to be drawn to the event
based on the ``triggering event'' itself. In each of the two safety
zones proposed, the fireworks shows or ``triggering events'' are
expected to draw a significant number of spectator craft based on
historical precedent, general public interest and the best projections
for attendance communicated to the Coast Guard via the marine event
application process. Part of the marine event application process is
the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) consideration the
Coast Guard completes for all federal actions taken. The issuance of a
marine event permit constitutes a ``federal action'', thus requiring
the NEPA review to be completed. The NEPA review considers the proposed
event location and evaluates the potential impact to environmentally
sensitive areas that may need to be addressed and mitigated. The
issuance of a rule creating the safety zone is a seperate federal
action. The fireworks events in this regulation are legacy events that
were inadvertently removed due to administrative error when the Coast
Guard revised 33 CFR 165.506, and its respective tables, in 2021. This
regulatory action was taken to re-establish the two safety zones rather
than establish them as new occurences.
    There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM.
    The first safety zone would be enforced on the third or fourth
Saturday in July of each year, beginning in July 2022, between 9:30
p.m. and 10 p.m. and cover all waters of John H. Kerr Reservoir within
a 400 yard radius of approximate position latitude 36[deg]37'51''

N, longitude 078[deg]32'50'' W, located near the center span of the
State Route 15 Highway Bridge.
    The second safety zone would be enforced on the evening of the
first or second Saturday or Sunday in June of each year, beginning in
June 2022, between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. and cover all waters of the
Elizabeth River within a 500-yard radius of approximate position of the
fireworks barge at latitude 36[deg]50'41'' N, longitude 076[deg]17'47''
W, located near Town Point Park in Norfolk, VA.
    Dates and times are subject to change in accordance with existing
regulatory text found in 33 CFR 165.506(c).
    The duration of the zones are intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after each
scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to
enter the safety zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the short amount
of time that vessels will be restricted from certain parts of the
waterway and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned
away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally vessels would not be
precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas
currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance
notifications will also be made to the local maritime community by
issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF-FM marine channel 16, and Marine Safety Information or Security
Bulletins so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications
to the public for most events will typically be made by local
newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that
these safety zones will only be enforced for limited durations, less
than 24 hours, occurring on specific dates throughout the year.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves 2
recurring safety zones lasting less than 1 hour each that will prohibit
entry within. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket.

For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 1.2.

0
2. In Sec.  165.506, amend table 3 to paragraph (h)(3) by adding
entries 12 and 13 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.506  Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast
Guard District.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) * * *

                       Table 3 to Paragraph (h)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                              * * * * * * *
12........  July--3rd or 4th   John H. Kerr       All waters of John H.
             Saturday.          Reservoir,         Kerr Reservoir within
                                Clarksville, VA;   a 400-yard radius of
                                Safety Zone.       approximate position
                                                   latitude
                                                   36[deg]37'51'' N,
                                                   longitude
                                                   078[deg]32'50'' W,
                                                   located near the
                                                   center span of the
                                                   State Route 15
                                                   Highway Bridge.
13........  June--first or     Elizabeth River,   All waters of the
             second Saturday    Town Point         Elizabeth River, Town
             or Sunday.         Reach, Norfolk,    Point Reach within a
                                VA; Safety Zone.   500-yard radius of
                                                   approximate position
                                                   of the fireworks
                                                   barge latitude
                                                   36[deg]50'41'' N,
                                                   longitude
                                                   076[deg]17'47'' W, in
                                                   vicinity of Town
                                                   Point Park in
                                                   Norfolk, VA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 9, 2022.
L.M. Dickey,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-10345 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 18)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4683-4685]
[DOCID:fr28ja08-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0043; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-31-AD;
Amendment 39-15340; AD 2008-02-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS 355 F2 and
AS 355 N Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France Model AS 355 F2 and AS 355 N helicopters. This AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The European Aviation Safety Agency,
the Technical Agent for France, with which we have a bilateral
agreement, states in the MCAI:

    This emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following
a report of yaw control restricted travel in operation following the
replacement of the load compensator. If not corrected, this
condition could lead to the loss of control of the helicopter.

    This AD requires actions that are intended to address this unsafe
condition.

DATES: This AD becomes effective February 12, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 67.00.29,
Revision 1, dated April 27, 2007, as of February 12, 2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by March 28, 2008.

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.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Cuevas, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, Fort Worth, Texas
76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Streamlined Issuance of AD

    The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance
of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt
MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce
safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD
issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure
Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our
technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct
unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.
    This AD references the MCAI and related service information that we
considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe
condition. The AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this
reason might not follow our plain language principles.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0131-E, dated May 11, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for these
French-certificated helicopters. The MCAI states:

    This emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following
a report of yaw control restricted travel in operation following the
replacement of the load compensator. If not corrected, this
condition could lead to the loss of control of the helicopter.
Investigation revealed that the load compensator lever was
incorrectly referenced in the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC).
Levers on helicopters Post-MOD 072065 (replacement of the load
compensator hydraulic actuator) should be Part Number (P/N) 355A27-
0082-00 and levers on helicopters Pre-MOD 072065 should be P/N
355A27-0072-00. This AD mandates inspection to identify the load
compensator lever and the hydraulic actuator assembly installed on
helicopters, to verify their compatibility and replacement of
improper P/Ns when an incompatibility is found.

The installation of an incompatible load compensator lever in a Pre-Mod
072065 helicopter may cause control travel restrictions while the
installation of an incompatible load compensator lever in a Post-Mod
072065 helicopter may cause increased control loads in the yaw control
pedals. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI and
service information in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
67.00.29, Revision 1, dated April 27, 2007. The actions described in
the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe condition as that
identified in the service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France,
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, we have been
notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI

and service information. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated
all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. However, the requirements of this
AD must be accomplished within 10 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD. The MCAI requires accomplishment before next flight.
Additionally, this AD requires that components with bore diameters
outside the tolerances specified in the ASB be replaced with airworthy
components with bore diameters within the specified tolerances instead
of contacting the manufacturer for a ``suitable repair solution.''
    These differences are highlighted in the ``Differences Between the
FAA AD and the MCAI'' section in the AD.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
installation of an incompatible load compensator lever may result in
restricted yaw control travel or increased control loads in the yaw
control pedals and the incompatibility must be corrected within 10
hours TIS. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0043; Directorate
Identifier 2007-SW-31-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 36 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about .25 work-hour to
inspect the helicopter and 10 work-hours to replace a load compensator
lever, if needed. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required
parts will cost about $1,161 for a load compensator lever, P/N 355A27-
0072-00, or $862 for a load compensator lever, P/N 355A27-0082-00.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $720 to inspect, or $20 per product, assuming no load
compensation levers are replaced.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-02-10 Eurocopter France: Amendment 39-15340. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0043; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-31-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February
12, 2008.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Eurocopter Model AS 355 F2 and AS 355 N
helicopters, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    This emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) is issued following
a report of yaw control restricted travel in operation following the
replacement of the load compensator. If not corrected, this
condition could lead to the loss of control of the helicopter.
    Investigation revealed that the load compensator lever was
incorrectly referenced in the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC).
Levers on helicopters Post-MOD 072065 (replacement of the load
compensator hydraulic actuator) should be Part Number (P/N) 355A27-
0082-00 and levers on helicopters Pre-MOD 072065 should be P/N
355A27-0072-00. This AD mandates inspection to identify the load
compensator lever and the hydraulic actuator assembly installed on
helicopters, to verify their compatibility and replacement of
improper P/Ns when an incompatibility is found.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following:

    (1) Within the next 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), determine
the part number (P/N) and the compatibility of the load compensator
lever (compensator level) and the hydraulic actuator assembly
(hydraulic actuator) in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraphs 2.B.1. through 2.B.2.c. of Eurocopter AS
355 Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 67.00.29, Revision 1, April
27, 2007 (ASB).

    Note: Instead of inspecting the rotorcraft, a review of the
helicopter maintenance records along with any other applicable data
(rotorcraft logbook, components list, etc.) is acceptable if each P/
N can be positively determined from that review.

    (2) For helicopters, Pre-Mod 072065, with an incompatible
hydraulic actuator, P/N 355A75-1370-01 or P/N 355A75-1370-03, and
compensator lever, P/N 355A27-0082-00:
    (i) If the helicopter has NOT been operated with compensator
lever, P/N 355A27-0082-00, installed, replace the compensator lever
before further flight with an airworthy compensator lever, P/N
355A27-0072-00.
    (ii) If the helicopter has been operated with compensator lever,
P/N 355A27-0082-00, installed, within the next 10 hours time-in-
service (TIS):
    (A) Remove the load compensator assembly and the compensator
lever, measure the diameters of the bores, inspect the swivel
bearings, replace the specified hydraulic actuator components and
the incompatible compensator lever and install the load compensator
assembly in accordance with the applicable steps in the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.B.3.b. of the ASB.
    (B) If the diameter of a bore is greater than the tolerances
specified in the applicable steps in the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 2.B.3.b., of the ASB, replace each part that
contains an out-of-tolerance bore diameter with an airworthy part
that contains a bore diameter that is within the specified
tolerances.
    (3) For helicopters, Post-MOD 072065, with an incompatible
hydraulic actuator, P/N 355A75-1370-02 or P/N 355A75-1370-04, and
compensator lever, P/N 355A27-0072-00:
    (i) If the helicopter has NOT been operated with compensator
lever, P/N 355A27-0072-00, installed, replace the compensator lever
before further flight with an airworthy compensator lever, P/N
355A27-0082-00.
    (ii) If the helicopter has been operated with compensator lever,
P/N 355A27-0072-00, installed, within the next 10 hours TIS, replace
the compensator lever with an airworthy compensator lever, P/N
355A27-0082-00, and inspect the bolts in accordance with the
applicable steps in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
2.B.3.b.of the ASB.
    (f) No person shall install a:
    (1) Load compensator lever, P/N 355A27-0082-00, on any Model AS
355 N or AS 355 F2 helicopter Pre-MOD 072065, with hydraulic
actuator assembly, P/N 355A75-1370-01 or P/N 355A75-1370-03; or a
    (2) Load compensator lever, P/N 355A27-0072-00, on any Model AS
355 N or AS 355 F2 helicopter Post-MOD 072065, with hydraulic
actuator assembly, P/N 355A75-1370-02 or P/N 355A75-1370-04.

Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

    (g) The requirements of this AD must be accomplished within 10
hours TIS after the effective date of this AD. The MCAI requires
accomplishment before next flight. Additionally, this AD requires
that components with bore diameters outside the tolerances specified
in the ASB be replaced with airworthy components with bore diameters
within the specified tolerances instead of contacting the
manufacturer for a ``suitable repair solution.''

Subject

    (h) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 6730,
Rotorcraft Servo System.

Other Information

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, 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: Ed Cuevas, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate, Safety Management Group, Fort Worth, Texas
76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) Airworthy Product: Use only FAA-approved corrective actions.
Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved
by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the
State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the
United States. You are required to assure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (j) MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency
Airworthiness Directive No. 2007-0131-E, dated May 11, 2007,
contains related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin No. 67.00.29, Revision 1, dated April 27, 2007, under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (l) For the Eurocopter service information identified in this
AD, contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, Texas 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (972) 641-
3527.
    (m) You may review copies of Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin No. 67.00.29, Revision 1, dated April 27, 2007, at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 28, 2007.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-1019 Filed 1-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P