[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16532-16533]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510 and 529

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0002]

New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor's Name and Address;
Corrections

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a document in
the Federal Register of April 20, 2010 (75 FR 20522) amending the
animal drug regulations to reflect changes to a sponsor's name and
address. That document contained errors in the regulatory text. FDA is
correcting the tables listing sponsors of approved animal drug
applications (NADAs) by adding a change to the sponsor's drug labeler
code (DLC). Cross-references to the sponsor's DLC are amended in two
sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) containing the
conditions of use approved animal drug products. These corrections are
being made to improve the accuracy of the animal drug regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective March 24, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George K. Haibel, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
published a document in the Federal Register of April 20, 2010 (75 FR
20522) amending the animal drug regulations to reflect changes to a
sponsor's name and address. That document contained errors in the
regulatory text. FDA is correcting the tables listing sponsors of
approved animal drug applications (NADAs) by adding a change to the
sponsor's drug labeler code (DLC). Cross-references to the sponsor's
DLC are amended in two sections of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) containing the conditions of use approved animal drug products.
These corrections are being made to improve the accuracy of the animal
drug regulations.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Part 529

    Animal drugs.

    Accordingly, 21 CFR parts 510 and 529 are corrected by making the
following correcting amendments:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

0
2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), revise the entry
for ``Piramal Critical Care, Inc.''; and in the table in paragraph
(c)(2), remove the

entry for ``060307'' and in numerical sequence, add an entry for
``066794'' to read as follows:

Sec.  510.600  Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of
approved applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Drug
                   Firm name and address                       labeler
                                                                 code
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Piramal Critical Care, Inc., 3850 Schelden Circle,                066794
 Bethlehem, PA 18017.......................................

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Drug labeler code                  Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
066794............................  Piramal Critical Care, Inc., 3850
                                     Schelden Circle, Bethlehem, PA
                                     18017.

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 529--CERTAIN OTHER DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 529 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  529.1186  [Corrected]

0
4. In paragraph (b) of Sec.  529.1186, remove ``060307, and 065085''
and in its place add ``065085, and 066794''.

Sec.  529.2150  [Corrected]

0
5. In paragraph (b) of Sec.  529.2150, remove ``060307'' and in its
place add ``066794''.

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-6795 Filed 3-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65236-65238]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0846]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, in the Vicinity of the Michoud Slip Position
30[deg]0'34.2'' N, 89[deg]55'40.7'' W to Position 30[deg]0'29.5'' N,
89[deg]55'52.6'' W

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Captain of the Port of New Orleans, under the authority of
the Magnuson Act, 33 CFR 165.30 and 165.33, has established a security
zone in the vicinity of the Michoud Slip encompassing the entire slip
from position 30[deg]0'34.2'' N, 89[deg]55'40.7'' W to position
30[deg]0'29.5'' N, 89[deg]55'52.6'' W across the mouth of the slip.
Vessels will not be allowed to enter this security zone without the
permission of the Captain of the Port, New Orleans. This security zone
is necessary to protect the Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer and
adjacent piers and infrastructure from destruction, loss or injury from
sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a
similar nature.

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR from October 22, 2010 through
December, 31, 2010. This rule is effective with actual notice for
purposes of enforcement from September 11, 2010, at 12 noon, through
December 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0846 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0846 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Eva VanCamp,
Sector New Orleans, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable and
contrary to public interest to delay the rule. Immediate action is
necessary to protect the Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer and
adjacent piers and infrastructure from destruction, loss or injury from
sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a
similar nature.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. This security zone is needed to
protect the Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer and adjacent piers and
infrastructure from destruction, loss or injury from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a similar nature.
Additional notice is impracticable and contrary to public interest.

Basis and Purpose

    An investigation associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident is
currently taking place in the vicinity of Michoud Slip. A security zone
has been established encompassing the entire slip from position
30[deg]0'34.2'' N, 89[deg]55'40.7'' W to position 30[deg]0'29.5'' N,
89[deg]55'52.6'' W across the mouth of the slip. Vessels will not be
allowed to enter this security zone without the permission of the
Captain of the Port, New Orleans. This security zone is necessary to
protect the Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer and adjacent piers and
infrastructure from destruction, loss or injury from sabotage or other
subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a similar nature.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard has established several safety and security zones
in South Louisiana to protect vessels and facilities engaged in
operations associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident. This
security zone is in addition to those safety and security zones and
adds additional requirements which are needed to ensure the safety of
evidence needed for the investigation of the incident. This security
zone is necessary to protect the Deepwater Horizon blowout preventer
and adjacent piers and infrastructure from destruction, loss or injury
from sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other causes of a
similar nature.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Due to its
location the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels, intending to
transit in the vicinity of Michoud Slip, encompassing

the entire slip from position 30[deg]0'34.2'' N, 89[deg]55'40.7'' W to
position 30[deg]0'29.5'' N, 89[deg]55'52.6'' W across the mouth of the
slip. This security zone will not have significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because of its location. If you
are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this
regulation please contact Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Eva VanCamp,
Sector New Orleans, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be uploaded to the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.06-1, 6.05-6 and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0846 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0846  Security Zone, in the Vicinity of the Michoud Slip.

    (a) Location. The area in the vicinity of Michoud Slip,
encompassing the entire slip from position 30[deg]0'34.2'' N,
89[deg]55'40.7'' W. to position 30[deg]0'29.5'' N, 89[deg]55'52.6'' W.
across the mouth of the slip is a security zone.

    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from
September 11, 2010, at 12 noon, through December 31, 2010.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulation in
Sec.  165.33 of this part, vessels are prohibited from transiting in
the vicinity of Michoud Slip, encompassing the entire slip from
position 30[deg]0'34.2'' N, 89[deg]55'40.7'' W. to position
30[deg]0'29.5'' N, 89[deg]55'52.6'' W. across the mouth of the slip.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring deviations from this rule must
request permission from the Captain of the Port New Orleans. The
Captain of the Port New Orleans may be contacted at telephone (504)
365-2543.
    (3) All persons and vessels obtaining permission to enter the
security zone established in paragraph (a) of this section must comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port New Orleans and
designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned,
warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units
under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

    Dated: September 10, 2010.
E.M. Stanton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2010-26673 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10110]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4533-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Alaska; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alaska (FEMA-4533-DR), dated April 9, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 20, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Vincent J.
Maykovich, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Michael F. O'Hare as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03328 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Economic Impact and Small Business Analysis for the Proposed
Compression-Ignition (CI) New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

	EPA is proposing to amend the CI NSPS for stationary engines that were
published on June 11, 2006.  Based on a settlement agreement resulting
from a legal challenge to the original rule, EPA must propose amendments
to the CI NSPS by May 22, 2010.  The impacts discussed in this
memorandum are based on proposing to implement more stringent standards
for stationary CI engines with a displacement greater than or equal to
10 liters/cylinder (l/cyl) and less than 30 l/cyl, consistent with
recent revisions to standards for similar mobile source marine engines.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the CI NSPS to require
stationary CI engines greater than or equal to 10 l/cyl and less than 30
l/cyl to meet the emission standards for the same size and displacement
engines as currently required under 40 CFR part 1042, Control of
Emissions from New and In-Use Marine Compression-Ignition Engines and
Vessels.  These standards will be phased-in between 2013 and 2017 model
year engines depending on the size and displacement.

BASIS OF ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTIONS

The 40 CFR part 1042 emission standards include recently finalized more
stringent standards, i.e., Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission standards, and are
the standards that EPA is proposing to adopt for stationary CI engines
greater than or equal to 10 l/cyl and less than 30 l/cyl.  Tier 3
standards are based on in-engine controls and ultra low sulfur diesel
fuel use.  The Tier 4 standards are based on diesel particulate filters
(DPF) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Consistent with how EPA
has treated stationary emergency CI engines in the past, EPA is not
requiring standards that force aftertreatment for stationary emergency
CI engines.  Only stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than or
equal to 10 l/cyl and less than 30 l/cyl will be subject to emission
standards based on aftertreatment under the proposed amendments

In order to estimate the number of new stationary CI engines in the
displacement range that would be subject to Tier 3 and Tier 4 emission
standards under the proposed amendments to the CI NSPS, EPA obtained
information from the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA).  According
to EMA, it is estimated that 8 new engines between 10 l/cyl and 30 l/cyl
would be produced yearly and would become subject to the rule.  Of these
8 engines, 3 are expected to be non-emergency engines and 5 are expected
to be emergency engines, according to EMA.  All engines are expected to
be used for power generation.

In order to estimate the pollutant reductions for stationary CI engines
between 10 l/cyl and 30 l/cyl that would be subject to 40 CFR part 1042
emission standards, EPA compared Tier 4 emission standards from 40 CFR
part 1042 to the previous standards that applied to these engines under
the CI NSPS, which were consistent with the emission standards in 40 CFR
part 94.  EPA used emission standards from Tables 3-16 and 3-41 of the
2008 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for locomotive and marine CI
engines.  The cumulative emissions reductions associated with the
proposed amendments in the year 2018 are 8 tpy of PM, 295 tpy of NOx,
and 4 tpy of HC.  The year 2018 is the first year these emission
standards would be fully implemented for stationary CI engines between
10 and 30 liters l/cyl.  In the year 2030, the cumulative emissions
reductions are estimated at 38 tpy of PM, 1,100 tpy of NOx, and 18 tpy
of  HC.

BASIS OF ESTIMATED COSTS TO AFFECTED SOURCES

	In order to estimate the costs associated with requiring Tier 4
emission standards for new non-emergency stationary CI engines, EPA
consulted with the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ).  EPA
used the costs presented in the 2008 RIA for locomotive and marine
engines2 in order to estimate the cost associated with meeting Tier 4
emission standards based on aftertreatment controls.  Specifically,
after consulting with OTAQ, it was found most appropriate to use the
hardware (or variable) costs in Tables 7A-5 and 7A-6 and the auxiliary
engine costs from Tables 7B-20 and 7B-21 of the 2008 RIA for locomotive
and marine engines.2   The hardware and auxiliary costs were multiplied
by the number of new stationary non-emergency CI engines between 10
l/cyl and 30 l/cyl to determine the total capital costs.  No capital
costs were attributed to new stationary emergency CI engines between 10
l/cyl and 30 l/cyl because these engines will not be subject to emission
standards that force aftertreatment.  The capital cost associated with
the proposed amendments to the CI NSPS is $236,000 ($2009) in 2018.

The annual costs associated with the proposed requirements for new
non-emergency CI engines between 10 l/cyl and 30 l/cyl include the
operating costs for the urea usage for the SCR control system, DPF
maintenance, and the increased fuel consumption associated with DPF.
These annual cost elements were estimated based on communication with
OTAQ, and information from Nonroad Engine Modeling documents. The
cumulative annual cost is estimated to be $142,000 ($2009) in 2018 and
$711,000 ($2009) in 2030.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

	In this economic analysis, we estimate impacts for the year 2018.   We
allocate the annual costs to the electric power generation industry
(NAICS 2211), the industry we expect the 3 new non-emergency CI engines
affected by 2018 will be located and the industry in which two-thirds of
the existing CI engines are currently classified.  We use the annual
average revenue for the electric power generation industry, which is
estimated using U.S. Census Bureau data at $41.2 million (2009 dollars).
 Assuming that a single affected non-emergency engine will be owned by
one firm, we thus assume three firms affected by this NSPS.   Thus, the
annual cost per affected firm is $47,333 (or $142,000/3).  We estimate
economic impacts using the cost-to-receipt (i.e., sales) ratio, or the
“sales test.”  The “sales test” is the impact methodology EPA
employs in analyzing small entity impacts as opposed to a “profits
test,” in which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share
of profits.

This is because revenues or sales data are commonly available data for
entities normally impacted by EPA regulations and profits data normally
made available are often not the true profit earned by firms because of
accounting and tax considerations.  Revenues as typically published are
usually correct figures and are more reliably reported when compared to
profit data.  The use of a “sales test” for estimating small
business impacts for a rulemaking such as this one is consistent with
guidance offered by EPA on compliance with SBREFA7 and is consistent
with guidance published by the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy that
suggests that cost as a percentage of total revenues is a metric for
evaluating cost increases on small entities in relation to increases on
large entities.8

By using an annualized cost to revenue metric, we estimate the economic
impact to be $47,333/$183 million, or 0.03 percent of revenues.9,
Assuming one of these firms is a small entity, the impact on the small
entity is also 0.03 percent.  Thus, based on this impact and there being
only one small entity affected by this proposal, we certify that there
is no significant economic impact on a substantial impact on small
entities (SISNOSE) associated with this rule. In addition, since the
annualized cost as a percent of sales or revenues estimate is an
approximation of the maximum price increase required for a product for a
firm to recover all costs of compliance, the maximum price increase
associated with this NSPS will be no greater than 0.03 percent.  The
change in affected product output should also be no higher than this.

 Email from Joe Suchecki, EMA to Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.  April 7,
2010.

 Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from
Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30
Liters Per Cylinder, EPA/420-R-08-001a May 2008.

 Email from Todd Sherwood, OTAQ to Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.  October 6,
2009.

 Email from Todd Sherwood, OTAQ to Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.  April 21,
2010.

 Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling --
Compression Ignition EPA420--P-04-009 April 2004 NR-009c.

 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Compression-Ignition (CI) RICE
NESHAP.  February 2010.

7The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding the types
of small business analysis that should be considered can be found at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfafinalguidance06.pdf , pp. 24-25.

8U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to
Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Implementing the
President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, May 2003
XE "U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy, May 2003"  .

9 U.S. Census Bureau .2008. “Firm Size Data from the Statistics of
U.S. Businesses: U.S. All Industries Tabulated by Receipt Size: 2002.”
<http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb02.htm>. Key Enterprise Statistics
for Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution (NAICS
2211): 2002.    XE "U.S. Census Bureau .2008. \“Firm Size Data from
the Statistics of U.S. Businesses\: U.S. All Industries Tabulated by
Receipt Size\: 2002.\” <http\://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb02.htm>."

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51450-51454]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0772; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-090-AD;
Amendment 39-18233; AD 2015-16-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-08-51 for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. AD 2011-08-51 required repetitive inspections of the lap
joint at certain stringers along the entire length from certain body
stations. This new AD expands the inspection area, requires additional
inspections for cracks and open pockets, requires corrective actions if
necessary, and revises the compliance times. This AD was prompted by an
evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) that has determined that
the lower fastener holes in the lower skin of the fuselage lap splice
are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the lower fastener holes in
the lower skin of the fuselage lap splice, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 29, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA 2014-
0772.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0772; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, 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: Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2011-08-51, Amendment 39-16701 (76 FR 28632,
May 18, 2011). AD 2011-08-51 applied to certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on November 17, 2014 (79 FR 68381). The NPRM was
prompted by an evaluation by the DAH that has determined that the lower
fastener holes in the lower skin of the fuselage lap splice are subject
to WFD. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections
of the lap joint at certain stringers along the entire length from
certain body stations. The NPRM also proposed to expand the inspection
area, require additional inspections for cracks and open pockets,
require corrective actions if necessary, and revise the compliance
times. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of
the lower fastener holes in the lower skin of the fuselage lap splice,
which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 68381, November 17, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Wording

    Boeing requested that we revise the last sentence in paragraph (k)
of the proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 17, 2014) to clarify that the
on-condition actions may be ``inspection or repair'' rather than
``inspection and repair.'' Boeing stated that condition 10 in table 6
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April
4, 2014, describes obtaining inspection or repair instructions. Boeing
explained that, depending on the configuration details identified,
repetitive inspections alone may be an appropriate action, or a repair
may be the appropriate action.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Varying detail
configurations and the total flight cycles at the time of the finding
are used to determine if an inspection program is adequate to address
the unsafe condition or if installation of a repair is required. We
have revised the wording in paragraph (k) of this AD to require
inspection or repair.

Request To Clarify Paragraph Heading

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) stated that the heading ``Repetitive
Inspections for Crack Indications at Stringers S-4R and S-4L, Body
Station (BS) 360 to BS 908,'' of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79
FR 68381, November 17, 2014) is misleading. SWA explained that the
heading is confusing since the paragraph contains both an initial
inspection and repetitive inspections.
    We agree to clarify the terminology used in the heading. When the
term ``repetitive'' is used, it does not necessarily exclude the
initial action. Many existing ADs use the term ``repetitive'' in the
headers for paragraphs that contain both the initial action and
repetitive actions. We find that no change to this AD is necessary
regarding this issue.

Request To Add Clarifying Note

    SWA requested that we add a note in paragraph (g) and paragraph (h)
of the proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 17, 2014) specifying that
Group 3 airplanes do not require inspection between BS 540 and BS 727E.
SWA stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2,
dated April 4, 2014, specifies no inspections to be accomplished from
BS 540 to BS 727E on Group 3 airplanes. SWA stated that, since
paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD and tables 1, 2, and 3 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4,
2014, define the inspection area as stringers 4L and 4R from BS 360 to
BS 908 for all airplanes, it could be interpreted that the proposed AD
would require an increased inspection area for Group 3 airplanes.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We disagree to add
a note in paragraph (g) and paragraph (h) of this AD. The
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, are clear regarding which
areas must be inspected. The SUMMARY section of this final rule does
specify that the inspection area is increased. However, we have added
``as applicable'' to paragraphs (g) and paragraph (h) of this AD to
provide clarification regarding the inspection area.

Request To Clarify Compliance Times

    SWA requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79
FR 68381, November 17, 2014) to clarify the compliance times. SWA
recommended splitting the paragraph requirements into three separate
paragraphs to address three different airplane groups. SWA stated that
table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, does not account
for airplanes that were inspected previously using either Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, dated April 4, 2011, or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011. SWA
stated that it is unclear how to apply the compliance times in table 1
for these airplanes, and as a result, airplanes with more than 30,000
total flight cycles that were not inspected previously using Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014,
will have exceeded the compliance times in table 1 upon the effective
date of the AD.
    SWA stated that since paragraph (n) of the proposed AD (79 FR
68381, November 17, 2014) provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD that were performed prior to the
effective date of the AD using either Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1319, dated April 4, 2011, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1319, Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011, SWA assumes that the intent
of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD is for the operator to accomplish
the first inspection in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, within 500 cycles from
the last inspection accomplished previously in accordance with either
the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin, dated April 4, 2011, or Revision 1,
dated April 8, 2011.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to revise paragraph
(g) of this AD. However, we do agree to clarify the compliance times.
For airplanes that were inspected previously using either Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, dated April 4, 2011, or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011, the next
inspection must be done within 500 cycles from the last inspection
accomplished previously in accordance with either the Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin, dated April 4, 2011, or Revision 1, dated April 8,
2011, except as provided by table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,''
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April
4, 2014. Table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, provides
optional inspections that may be used after inspections in table 1 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, have been accomplished.
    For airplanes that were not inspected previously using either
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, dated April 4, 2011, or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 1, dated April 8,
2011, the initial inspection must be done within the applicable
compliance times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision
2, dated April 4, 2014. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Inspection Requirements

    SWA requested that we provide clarification regarding the
applicability of table 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014,
for accomplishing the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)
of the proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 17, 2014). SWA stated that
the inspection intervals defined in table 2 are dependent on the total
flight cycles of airplanes that meet condition 1 (no crack found), and
that operators of airplanes that meet condition 2 (any crack found)
should contact Boeing for repair instructions prior to further flight.
    SWA stated that the alternative repetitive inspection intervals
apply only to aircraft that meet condition 1 each time the aircraft is
inspected. SWA explained that it is unclear whether or not the operator
is able to continue utilizing the table 2 inspection intervals if
condition 2 is found during any repetitive inspection on an airplane,
or if the operator must revert back to the table 1 repetitive
inspection interval from that point forward for that airplane.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (l) of this AD
requires a repair if any crack is found. Accomplishment of the repair
terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g) and
(j) of this AD in the repaired area only. Repetitive inspections must
be done on all unrepaired areas at the times specified in table 1 or
table 2, as applicable. We find that no change to this AD is necessary
regarding this issue.

Requests for Credit and Exception to Inspection Requirements

    SWA requested that we include a provision in paragraph (n) of the
proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 17, 2014) to provide credit for the
general visual inspection required by paragraph (k) of the proposed AD
for skin panels that were replaced using the procedures specified in
Figure 35 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1306, provided that the
corrective action for Condition 9 is followed.
    SWA also requested that we add an exception in paragraph (m) of the
proposed AD (79 FR 68381, November 17, 2014) that allows the operator
to omit the inspection required by paragraph (k) of the proposed AD if
the corrective action for Condition 9 is followed and the operator's
records show the part number of the skin assembly installed on the
airplane.
    To justify its requests, SWA stated that its airplanes, defined as
Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated
April 4, 2014, on which the crown skin panel replacement was
accomplished as described previously in Figure 35 of Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53-1306, were inspected previously to determine if the
existing skin assembly was an ``MPN 65C35798-1 (open pockets

adjacent to the STR 4R lap joint)'' or an ``MPN 65C35798-8 (closed
pockets adjacent to the STR 4R lap joint).'' SWA stated that the
existing skin panel was then replaced with a new skin panel of the same
configuration as the removed production panel. SWA explained that if an
operator's records show the part number of the skin panel assembly
installed, the operator will be able to determine if the panel is
configured with Condition 9 or Condition 10 and, therefore, SWA does
not need to do the inspection required by paragraph (k) of the proposed
AD.
    We disagree with the commenter's requests. The fuselage crown skin
replacements described in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1306 are a
part of a SWA-specific modification program. We do not consider it
appropriate to include various provisions in an AD that are applicable
only to a single operator's unique use of an affected airplane.
However, an operator may request approval of an alternative method of
compliance under the provisions of paragraph (o) of this AD if
sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the fuselage crown
skin replacements would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have
not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 68381, November 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 68381, November 17, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. An investigation is ongoing,
and no terminating action has been developed. Once terminating action
is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2,
dated April 4, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
inspections for crack indications at certain stringers, an inspection
for open pockets of the lower skin panel at stringer S-4R, and repairs.
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 of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 130 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost       Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections          6 or 4,270              None..............  $510 or $362,950   $66,300 or
 [actions retained from AD       work[dash]hours                             per inspection     $47,183,500 per
 2011-08-51, Amendment 39-       (depending on                               cycle.             inspection
 16701 (76 FR 28632, May 18,     inspection method) x                                           cycle.
 2011)].                         $85 per work-hour =
                                 $510 or $362,950 per
                                 inspection cycle.
Repetitive inspections [new     4 or 550                None..............  $340 or $46,750    $44,200 or
 action].                        work[dash]hours                             per inspection     $6,077,500 per
                                 (depending on                               cycle.             inspection
                                 inspection method) x                                           cycle.
                                 $85 per hour = $340
                                 or $46,750 per
                                 inspection cycle.
One-time inspections [new       5,370 work[dash]hours   None..............  $456,450.........  $59,338,500.
 action].                        x $85 per hour =
                                 $456,450.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this 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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2011-08-51, Amendment 39-16701 (76 FR 28632, May 18, 2011), and adding
the following new AD:

2015-16-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18233; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0772; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-090-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 29, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-08-51, Amendment 39-16701 (76 FR 28632,
May 18, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -
500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April
4, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) that has determined that the lower fastener holes in
the lower skin of the fuselage lap splice are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracking of the lower fastener holes in the lower skin of
the fuselage lap splice, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections for Crack Indications at Stringers S-4R and
S-4L, Body Station (BS) 360 to BS 908

    At the applicable time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: Do an external eddy current
inspection, or internal eddy current and detailed inspections, for
crack indications at stringers S-4R and S-4L, from BS 360 to BS 908,
as applicable, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, in
accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014.
Repeat the inspection(s) thereafter at the applicable intervals
specified in table 1 or table 2, as applicable, of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014. Either inspection option may be
used at any repetitive inspection cycle.

(h) One-Time Inspections for Cracks at Stringers S-4L and S-4R, BS 360
to BS 908

    At the applicable time specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)
of this AD: Do one-time internal detailed and eddy current
inspections for cracks at stringers S-4R and S-4L, from BS 360 to BS
908, as applicable, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision
2, dated April 4, 2014. Accomplishment of the inspections required
by this paragraph does not terminate the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) One-Time Inspections for Cracks at Stringer S-4R, BS 908 to BS 1016

    For airplanes identified as Group 2, 3, 5, and 7 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: At
the applicable time specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)
of this AD, do one-time internal detailed and eddy current
inspections for cracks at stringer S-4R, from BS 908 to BS 1016, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014.

(j) Repetitive Inspections for Cracks at Stringer S-4R, BS 908 to BS
1016

    For airplanes identified as Group 2, 3, 5, and 7 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: At
the applicable time specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)
of this AD, do external eddy current inspections, or internal eddy
current and detailed inspections, for cracks at stringer S-4R, from
BS 908 to BS 1016, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision
2, dated April 4, 2014. Repeat the inspection(s) thereafter at the
applicable intervals specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014. Either inspection option may be
used at any repetitive inspection cycle.

(k) General Visual Inspection for Open Pockets at Stringer S-4R, BS 908
to BS 1016

    For airplanes identified as Group 1, 4, and 6 in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014: At
the applicable time specified in table 6 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014, except as required by paragraph (m)
of this AD, do a general visual inspection for open pockets of the
lower skin panel at stringer S-4R, from BS 908 to BS 1016, in
accordance with Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated April 4, 2014.
If any open pocket is found, before further flight, inspect or
repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

(l) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD:
Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.
Accomplishment of repairs approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (o) of this AD terminates the repetitive
inspections specified in paragraphs (g) and (j) of this AD in the
repaired areas only.

(m) Service Information Exception

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2,
dated April 4, 2014, specifies a compliance time ``after the
Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
dated April 4, 2011; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319,
Revision 1, dated April 8, 2011. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1319, dated April 4, 2011, was incorporated by reference in AD
2011-08-51, Amendment 39-16701 (76 FR 28632, May 18, 2011). Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 1, dated April 8, is
not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (p)(1) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2011-08-51, Amendment 39-16701 (76 FR
28632, May 18, 2011), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of paragraphs (g) and (l) of this AD.

(p) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer
Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-
627-5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (q)(4) and (q)(5) of this AD.

(q) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 29, 2015.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1319, Revision 2, dated
April 4, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (5) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20372 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 44242-44243]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2351-011]

Public Service Company of Colorado; Notice of Application for
Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

July 23, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of license to delete certain non-
jurisdictional transmission facilities from license.
    b. Project No.: 2351-011.
    c. Date Filed: June 17, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Excel Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Public
Service Company of Colorado.
    e. Name of Project: Cabin Creek Pumped Storage Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the South Clear Creek and
its tributary Cabin Creek in Clear Creek County, Colorado.
    g. Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Randy Rhodes, Excel Energy, 4653 Table
Mountain Drive, Golden, Colorado 80403. Tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Mr. Vedula Sarma at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: August 25, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number P-2351-011 on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, 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 any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Excel Energy on behalf of Public Service
Company of Colorado proposes to delete from license a 31-mile-long
double-circuit 230-kV transmission line extending from Cabin Creek to
the Lookout Substation. According to the licensee the line is no longer
a primary line for the project, but it is an integral part of the
Public Service Co's interconnected transmission system in Colorado.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3372 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    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. 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. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17401 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P