[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29410-29411]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10298]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-330, OMB Control No. 3235-0645]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Interactive Data

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    The ``Interactive Data'' collection of information requires issuers
filing registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and reports under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) to submit specified financial

information to the Commission and post it on their corporate websites,
if any, in interactive data format using eXtensible Business Reporting
Language (XBRL). This collection of information is located primarily in
registration statement and report exhibit provisions, which require
interactive data, and Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.405),
which specifies how to submit and post interactive data. The exhibit
provisions are in Item 601(b)(101) of Regulation S-K (17 CFR
229.601(b)(101)), Form F-10 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 239.40)
and Forms 20-F, 40-F and 6-K under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 249.220f,
17 CFR 249.240f and 17 CFR 249.306).
    In interactive data format, financial statement information could
be downloaded directly into spreedsheets and analyzed in a variety of
ways using commercial off-the-shelf software. The specified financial
information already is and will continue to be required to be submitted
to the Commission in traditional format under existing requirements.
The purpose of the interactive data requirement is to make financial
information easier for investors to analyze and assist issuers in
automating regulatory filings and business information processing. We
estimate that 8,315 respondents per year will each submit an average of
4.5 reponses per year for an estimated total of responses. We further
estimate an internal burden of 54.56446 hours per response for a total
annual internal burden of 2,041,693 hours (54.56446 hours per response
x 37,418 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by June 13, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: May 9, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-10298 Filed 5-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 197)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58013-58016]
[DOCID:fr12oc07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0657; FRL-8479-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to
the California State Implementation Plan; San Francisco Bay Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action under the Clean Air Act to
approve a revision to the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision consists of
transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to
interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-
related control measures and mitigation measures. The intended effect
is to update the transportation conformity criteria and procedures in
the applicable SIP.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 11, 2007 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 13, 2007. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0657, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-

line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and

EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to
EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3964<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. Transportation Conformity
II. Background for This Action
    A. Federal Requirements
    B. San Francisco Bay Area Conformity SIP
III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to ensure that federally supported highway,
transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (``conform
to'') the purpose of the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas
that are designated nonattainment, and to areas that have been
redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans
developed under section 175A of the Act, for the following
transportation related criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
    Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation
activities will

not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the relevant national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). The transportation conformity regulation is found in
40 CFR part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in
40 CFR 51.390.

II. Background for This Action

A. Federal Requirements

    EPA promulgated the Federal transportation conformity criteria and
procedures (the conformity rule) on November 24, 1993. See 58 FR 62188.
Among other things, the rule required states to address all provisions
of the conformity rule in their SIPs (``conformity SIPs''). Under 40
CFR 51.390, most sections of the conformity rule were required to be
copied verbatim. States were also required to tailor all or portions of
the following three sections of the conformity rule to meet their
state's individual circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105, which addresses
consultation procedures; 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses
written commitments to control measures that are not included in a
metropolitan planning organization's (MPO's) transportation plan and
transportation improvement program that must be obtained prior to a
conformity determination, and the requirement that such commitments,
when they exist, must be fulfilled; and 40 CFR 93.125(c), which
addresses written commitments to mitigation measures that must be
obtained prior to a project-level conformity determination, and the
requirement that project sponsors must comply with such commitments,
when they exist.
    On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act's
transportation conformity provisions. One of the changes streamlines
the requirements for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are
required to address and tailor only three sections of the conformity
rule in their conformity SIPs: 40 CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii),
and, 40 CFR 93.125(c), described above. In general, states are no
longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the
other sections of the conformity rule. These changes took effect on
August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.

B. San Francisco Bay Area Conformity SIP

    For transportation planning purposes, the San Francisco Bay Area is
defined as the nine California counties of Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.
All but the eastern half of Solano County and the northern half of
Sonoma County lie within the San Francisco Bay Area 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. The eastern half of Solano County is also
designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS but is included in the
Sacramento Metropolitan air quality planning area.\1\ The northern half
of Sonoma County is designated unclassifiable/attainment for ozone. A
portion of the San Francisco Bay Area referred to as ``urbanized
areas'' was redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for the CO
NAAQS in 1998 and is subject to a maintenance plan. Areas within the
San Francisco Bay Area but outside ``urbanized areas'' are designated
as unclassifiable/attainment for the CO NAAQS. The San Francisco Bay
Area is considered unclassifiable/attainment for the other NAAQS. See
40 CFR 81.305 for California air quality planning areas and
designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the
MPO for the Sacramento area. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and SACOG, in consultation with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the California Air
Resources Board, and the Governor's office, have developed and
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for undertaking
conformity analysis in eastern Solano County. This MOU, approved and
adopted by MTC in Resolution No. 2611 on September 22, 1993, was
included as Appendix A to the San Francisco Bay Area interagency
consultation procedures that we approved into the California SIP on
October 21, 1997 (62 FR 54587).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 16, 1996, the Governor's designee for SIP submittals,
the California Air Resources Board (ARB), submitted ``The San Francisco
Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol--Conformity
Procedures'' (``conformity procedures'') and ``The San Francisco Bay
Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol--Interagency
Consultation Procedures'' (``consultation procedures''), together
referred to as the ``San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP'' to EPA.
EPA approved the San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP on October 21,
1997. See 62 FR 54587. ARB submitted a revision to the San Francisco
Bay Area conformity SIP on August 6, 1998. EPA did not act on that
submittal.
    Subsequent to SAFETEA-LU being enacted, the co-lead agencies for
air quality planning in the San Francisco Bay Area--Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)--
revised the San Francisco Bay Area conformity SIP to reflect the
SAFETEA-LU changes and to clarify interagency consultation procedures.
Resolutions approving the revised transportation conformity criteria
and procedures, referred to as the transportation conformity protocol,
were adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors on July 19, 2006, by the
ABAG Executive Board on July 20, 2006, and by the MTC Commission on
July 26, 2006. MTC subsequently forwarded the transportation conformity
protocol to ARB, and ARB adopted and submitted the protocol to EPA as a
revision to the California SIP on December 20, 2006. The December 20,
2006 SIP revision submittal supersedes the August 6, 1998 submittal.

III. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation

    The SIP revision submitted to EPA on December 20, 2006, consists of
the San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity
Protocol--Conformity Procedures and Interagency Consultation
Procedures. The submittal documents public notice and hearing for this
SIP revision in compliance with CAA section 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102.
The submittal also contains a request that we delete the analogous SIP-
approved conformity procedures, which are no longer required under
SAFETEA-LU, and replace them with the submitted language that addresses
40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c). When the SIP-approved conformity
procedures are rescinded, the Federal transportation conformity
regulations will apply, except for those sections addressed by the
current submittal. EPA approval of these changes is consistent with
Federal law and regulations, and will obviate the need for SIP
revisions that would have otherwise been triggered by changes to the
underlying Federal regulations.
    The submittal also includes provisions that would replace the SIP-
approved interagency consultation procedures with revised
procedures.\2\ The changes to the interagency consultation procedures
include the

addition of more detail regarding the consultation structure and
procedures for regional transportation plan and transportation
improvement program updates and amendments, clarification of agency
roles and responsibilities for the conformity and SIP consultation
processes, and additional detail regarding consultation on conformity
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CARB's December 20, 2006 SIP revision submittal does not
include the MOU concerning conformity analyses in eastern Solano
County and thus does not entirely supersede the previously-approved
interagency consultation procedures. With today's action, the
previously-approved MOU will continue to be a part of the applicable
California SIP. It is our understanding that a revision to the MOU
will be submitted as a SIP revision. If approved, it will supersede
the previously approved MOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the Clean
Air Act as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR part 93
and 40 CFR 51.390) governing state procedures for transportation
conformity and interagency consultation and have concluded that the
submittal is approvable. Details of our review are set forth in a
technical support document (TSD), which has been included in the docket
for this action. Specifically, in our TSD, we identify how the
submitted procedures satisfy our requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for
interagency consultation with respect to the development of
transportation plans and programs, SIPs, and conformity determinations,
the resolution of conflicts, and the provision of adequate public
consultation, and our requirements under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and
93.125(c) for enforceability of control measures and mitigation
measures.

IV. Public Comment and Final Action

    Under section 110(k) of the Act, and for the reasons set forth
above, EPA is taking action to approve the San Francisco Bay Area
Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol--Conformity Procedures
and Interagency Consultation Procedures, as a revision to the
California SIP. As a result of this action, the Bay Area's previously
SIP-approved conformity protocol will be replaced by the procedures
adopted by BAAQMD on July 19, 2006, by ABAG on July 20, 2006, and by
MTC on July 26, 2006, and submitted by ARB to EPA on December 20, 2006.
    We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are
finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing
approval of the same submittal. If we receive adverse comments by
November 13, 2007, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not
take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final
action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse
comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further
notice on December 11, 2007. This will incorporate these transportation
conformity procedures into the federally enforceable SIP and thereby
replace the previous version of the procedures approved on October 21,
1997 (62 FR 54587) in the San Francisco Bay Area portion of the
California SIP except for the MOU covering eastern Solano County.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state law
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: September 20, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(349) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (349) San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity
Protocol--Conformity Procedures and Interagency Consultation Procedures
was submitted on December 20, 2006, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC).
    (1) The San Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality
Conformity Protocol--Conformity Procedures (July 26, 2006) and San
Francisco Bay Area Transportation Air Quality Conformity Protocol--
Interagency Consultation Procedures (July 26, 2006), adopted by BAAQMD
on July 19, 2006, by ABAG on July 20, 2006, and by MTC on July 26,
2006.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-20059 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34406-34408]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0180; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-004-AD;
Amendment 39-17869; AD 2014-12-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-
Produkcyjne Szybownictwa ``PZL-Bielsko'' Model SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz''
Sailplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-11-10 for
Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa ``PZL-Bielsko''
Model SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz'' sailplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as fatigue damage of the welded joint between the airbrake
torque tube and the airbrake control system lever located inside the
fuselage. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 22, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 22,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0180; or in person at the 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Allstar PZL
Glider, Sp. z o. o., ul. Cieszynska 325, 43-300 Bielsko-Biala, Poland;
telephone: +48 33 812 50 26; fax: +48 33 812 3739; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://szd.com.pl/en/products/szd-50-3-puchacz. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<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 add an AD that would apply to Przedsiebiorstwo
Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Model SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz'' airplanes. The
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2014 (79 FR
16248), and proposed to supersede AD 2004-11-10, Amendment 39-13656 (69
FR 31872, June 8, 2004).
    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country. The MCAI states that:

Several occurrences of airbrake torque tube failure were reported on
SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz'' sailplanes. In all cases, as a result of
disruption of the welded joint between torque tube and the lever,
the broken torque tube detached from the lever located in the
fuselage. The result of subsequent investigations identified fatigue
damage, as a consequence of periodical striking load exceeding the
established maximum value, to be a possible failure cause.
Additionally, corrosion damage was identified at internal surface of
the opened tube.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, would inhibit the
function of the airbrake, possibly resulting in reduced control of
the sailplane.
Prompted by these findings, Allstar PZL issued Service Bulletin (SB)
No. BE-052/SZD-50-3/2003 to provide inspection instructions. CAO of
Poland issued AD SP-0052-2003-A to require a one-time inspection of
the airbrake torque tube in the area of welded joint in accordance
with that SB.
Since that AD was issued, Allstar PZL issued SB No. BE-062/SZD-50-3/
2013 to introduce repetitive inspections and accomplishment
instructions for reinforced torque tube inspections.
For the reasons described above, this AD supersedes CAO of Poland AD
SP-0052-2003-A and requires repetitive inspections of the airbrake
torque tube and, depending on findings, replacement with a
serviceable part.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0180-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 16248, March 25, 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 16248, March 25, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 5 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours for the annual
inspection of sailplanes equipped with the old version torque tube; 1
work-hour for the annual inspection of sailplanes equipped with the new
version torque tube; and 5 work-hours for the 1,000-hour annual
inspection of sailplanes equipped with the new version torque tube. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $875, for a cost of
$1,300 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

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),
    (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.

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-
0180; 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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 Amendment AD 2004-11-10,
Amendment 39-13656 (69 FR 31872, June 8, 2004) and adding the following
new AD:

2014-12-08 Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa
``PZL-Bielsko'': Amendment 39-17869; Docket No. FAA-2014-0180;
Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-004-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 22,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2004-11-10, Amendment 39-13656 (69 FR
31872; June 8, 2004).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne
Szybownictwa ``PZL-Bielsko'' Model SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz'' sailplanes,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as fatigue damage of the welded
joint between the airbrake torque tube and the airbrake control
system lever located inside the fuselage. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue damage of the airbrake torque tube and
the airbrake control system lever, which may cause a malfunction of
the airbrake, resulting in loss of control of the sailplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(6) of this AD:
    (1) For sailplanes equipped with the old version torque tube,
with or without reinforced corner: Initially within 30 days after
July 22, 2014 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed every 12 months or 100 hours
time-in-service (TIS), whichever occurs first, do a detailed
inspection of the airbrake torque tube following the inspection
procedures in paragraph (2)(b) in Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o.o.
Service Bulletin No. BE-062/SZD-50-3/2013 ``PUCHACZ'', Revision A,
dated September 16, 2013.
    (2) For sailplanes equipped with the new type torque tube, with
reinforced corner: Initially within 30 days after July 22, 2014 (the
effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals
not to exceed every 12 months or 100 hours TIS, whichever occurs
first, visually inspect the welded joint of the airbrake torque tube
following the conditions of inspection, first bulleted item of
paragraph (2)(a)(2), in Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o.o. Service
Bulletin No. BE-062/SZD-50-3/2013 ``PUCHACZ'', Revision A, dated
September 16, 2013.
    (3) For sailplanes equipped with the new type torque tube, with
reinforced corner: During the first 1,000-hour inspection after July
22, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), and then repetitively at
each scheduled 1,000-hour inspection, do a detailed inspection of
the welded joint of the airbrake torque tube following the
inspection procedures in paragraph (2)(b) in Allstar PZL Glider Sp.
z o.o. Service Bulletin No. BE-062/SZD-50-3/2013 ``PUCHACZ'',
Revision A, dated September 16, 2013.
    (4) For all sailplanes: If during any inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD any damage is found
as detailed in paragraph (2)(c) of PZL Glider Sp. z o.o. Service
Bulletin No. BE-062/SZD-50-3/2013 ``PUCHACZ'', Revision A, dated
September 16, 2013, before further flight, replace the airbrake
torque tube as described in the Post-inspection procedures,
paragraph (2)(c), of Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o.o. Service Bulletin
No. BE-062/SZD-50-3/2013 ``PUCHACZ'', Revision A, dated September
16, 2013.
    (5) For all sailplanes: Replacement of an airbrake torque tube,
as required by paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, does not constitute
terminating action for inspection requirements of paragraphs (f)(1),
(f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD.
    (6) For all sailplanes: Compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD can be demonstrated
by incorporating the applicable required inspections and follow-on
corrective actions, as specified in Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o.o.
Service Bulletin No. BE-062/SZD-50-3/2013 ``PUCHACZ'', Revision A,
dated September 16, 2013, into the approved instructions for
continued airworthiness (ICA) of the maintenance program.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2014-0015, dated January 14, 2014, for related information. The MCAI
can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0180-0002.

(i) 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) Allstar PZL Glider Sp. z o.o. Service Bulletin No. BE-062/
SZD-50-3/2013 ``PUCHACZ'', Revision A, dated September 16, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa
``PZL-Bielsko'' Model SZD-50-3 ``Puchacz'' service information
identified in this AD, contact Allstar PZL Glider, Sp. z o. o., ul.
Cieszynska 325, 43-300 Bielsko-Biala, Poland; telephone: +48 33 812
50 26; fax: +48 33 812 3739; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://szd.com.pl/en/products/szd-50-3-puchacz.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 6, 2014.
Timothy Smyth,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-13839 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 24)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6229-6230]
[DOCID:fr06fe09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0022]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Cedar Creek, Cedar Beach, DE

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has approved a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
SR 36 Bridge, at mile 0.5, across Cedar Creek, in Cedar Beach,
Delaware. Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be
allowed to operate on an advance notice basis on particular dates and
times. The deviation is necessary to perform inspections of the
electrical and mechanical systems.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on February 5, 2009, to
5 p.m. on April 3, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0022 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: 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, and the Commander
(dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal Building, 1st Floor, 431
Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA 23704-5004 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hardesty and Hanover LLP Engineering, on
behalf of the Delaware Department of Transportation (who owns and
operates this swing-type drawbridge) requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating schedule to perform inspections of the
electrical and mechanical systems.
    The SR 36 Bridge, at mile 0.5, across Cedar Creek in Cedar Beach,
DE, has a vertical clearance of two feet, above mean high water, in the
closed-to-navigation position. The existing regulation is listed at 33
CFR 117.234.

    Vessel openings will be provided each day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
February 5, 2009, and from April 1 to April 3, 2009, if at least two
hours' notice is given.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the opening restrictions of
the draw span to minimize transiting delays caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 21, 2009.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-2498 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36471]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0620]

Safety Zone; Leukemia and Lymphoma Light the Night Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce regulations for the Leukemia and
Lymphoma Light the Night Fireworks display safety zone on October 12,
2019. Our regulation for firework display safety zones within the
Captain of the Port Zone Columbia River identifies the regulated area
for this event on the Willamette River in Portland, OR, and the
regulations that will be enforced. These regulations prohibit persons
and vessels from entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring
within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Columbia River or their designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1315 will be enforced for the
Leukemia and Lymphoma Light the Night Fireworks display safety zone
listed in the table in Sec.  165.1315(a) from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on
October 12, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email LCDR Dixon Whitley, Waterways
Management Division, MSU Portland, Oregon, Coast Guard; telephone 503-
240-9319, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Light the Night Fireworks display in
Portland, OR detailed in 33 CFR 165.1315 from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on
October 12, 2019. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of life
on the Columbia River during the fireworks display. Under the
provisions of 33 CFR 165.1315 and subpart C of part 165, no person or
vessel may enter the safety zone, consisting of all waters of the
Columbia River within a 450 yard radius of the launch site located at
45[deg]30'23'' N, 122[deg]40'4'' W, without permission from the Captain
of the Port Sector Columbia River or their designated representative.
Persons or vessels wishing to enter the safety zone may request
permission to do so from the on-scene Captain of the Port
representative via VHF Channel 16 or 13. The Coast Guard may be
assisted by other Federal, State, or local enforcement agencies in
enforcing this regulation.

    Dated: July 23, 2019.
J.C. Smith,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2019-15997 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25205-25207]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1002; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-23]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Madera, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Madera Municipal Airport,
Madera, CA, eliminate references to the Clovis and Friant Very High
Frequency Omni-Directional Range/Tactical Air Navigation Aids (VORTAC),
and update the airports geographic coordinates to match the FAA's
current aeronautical database. In addition, this action would update
the airspace lateral dimensions to meet current requirements by

removing 4.4 miles of airspace extending to the southeast, adding 0.4
miles to the radius around the Airport Reference Point and adding a
portion that extends 1 mile either side of 316[deg] bearing from the
4.4 mile radius to 1.5 miles northwest. This action would support the
operation of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) under standard instrument
approach and departure procedures in the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-1002; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-23, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for the Madera Municipal Airport, Madera, CA, to
support IFR operations in standard instrument approach and departure
procedures at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-1002;
Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-23''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198-6547.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Madera Municipal Airport
Class E5 domestic airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface of the earth. The Friant and Clovis VORTACs are being
decommissioned and require the legal descriptions in FAA Order 7400.11C
be rewritten to eliminate references to these navigational aids.
Concurrently with the rewriting of the legal descriptions, the FAA
completed a review of the airspace. As a result of this review, the FAA
is proposing the removal of 4.4 miles of airspace extending to the
southeast, adding 0.4 miles to the radius around the Airport Reference
Point to accommodate circling approaches, and adding a portion that
extends 1 mile either side of 316[deg] bearing from the 4.4 mile radius
to 1.5 miles northwest. In addition, this proposal would update the
airports geographic coordinates to match the FAA's current aeronautical
database. This action would support the operation of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) under standard instrument approach and departure procedures
in the National Airspace System.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally current, and is non-controversial
and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore:
(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); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only
affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Madera, CA [Amend]

Madera Muni Airport, CA
    (Lat. 36[deg]59'11'' N, long. 120[deg]06'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.4-mile radius of the Madera Muni Airport and within 2.8
miles each side of the 112[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 4.4-mile radius to 6 miles southeast of the airport and
that airspace 1.8 miles either side of the 80[deg] bearing from a
point in space, coordinates lat. 37[deg]01'29'' N, long.
120[deg]09'06'' W, extending from the 4.4 mile radius to 7.2 miles
from the point in space coordinates and that airspace 1 mile either
side of the 316[deg] bearing from the Madera Muni Airport extending
from the 4.4-mile radius to 5.5 miles northwest.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 17, 2019.
Maria A. Aviles,
Group Manager (A), Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-11301 Filed 5-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

11/16/2007 03:45 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kevin
Cavender/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Schmidt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia
Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Subject

Responses to your Pb questions

Heidi,

Attached are our responses to the lead questions you raised last week.
The responses are provided under each individual question.   Let us know
if you have more questions.   Thanks.

 ----- Original Message -----

  From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  Sent: 11/09/2007 05:53 PM

  To: Lydia Wegman

  Cc: "Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Schwab,
Margo"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
  Subject: Pb NAAQS follow up questions to 11/8 mtg

Lydia,

Our thanks to your team for the Pb NAAQS review on 11/8.  We have a few
follow up questions:

1)     Slide 12 shows Pb emissions tpy/1000 m2.  To get a better sense
for current levels, what do we think this map would look like if
displaying µg/m3 using Max Qtr?  Also, µg/m3 using Max Monthly?

Response:  Slide 12 is presenting Pb emissions (tpy/1000 m2) from
stationary sources in the 2002 NEI.  Air concentrations (based on
2003-05 monitoring data) in terms of µg/m3 using Max Qtr and Max
Monthly are shown on slides 15 and 16, respectively.  [These are from
Figures 2-11 and 2-12 in the Staff Paper.]  The emissions information in
the NEI is not available in terms of max quarterly or max monthly
estimates.

2)     We would like to learn more about Policy Relevant Exposures.
Please send us the scientific studies that specifically link inhalation
of pb in the ambient air to blood pb, controlling for the influence of
the other ways in which ambient pb would influence blood pb. In your
presentation you said that post 1978 studies how that the ‘air to
pb’ ration is between 1-3 and 1-10.  We are interested in how one can
empirically document the ‘inhalation’ component separate from the
secondary pathway (deposition on surfaces, thus contact through
ingestion of food and hand mouth contact).

Response:  The ratios mentioned in the briefing (and recognized on pages
91-92, 115) pertain to all pathways of exposure to ambient air Pb and
are not limited to the inhalation pathway.  These are discussed in the
1986 CD, p. 1-101 and Section <IP_ADDRESS> and in a review article by
Brunekreef (1984. The relationship between air lead and blood lead in
children: a critical review. Science of the total environment, 38:
79-123).  A more recent paper identified in the 2006 CD (pp. 3-23 to
3-24) from which such a ratio can be derived is Hilts (2003. Effect of
smelter emission reductions on children's blood lead levels. Sci Total
Environ. 303: 51-58).

3)     How is lead resuspension controlled across large geographies when
historical deposits are a significant contributor to airborne lead
levels?

Response:  Our current guidance for Pb emissions recommends the use of
PM-10 fugitive dust control measures  to address resuspension issues
related to historical deposits of lead.  The controls that are commonly
recommended are the use of fugitive dust suppressants (such as chemical
or oil based surfactants, or water) and covering the affected surface
with vegetation (such as grass or shrubs) to hold the soil in place to
reduce the possibilities of resuspension. Other control measures include
restricting public access to the affected areas to prevent the soil
crust from being disturbed, and in some cases paving the affected
surfaces.  In other more severe cases (usually Superfund areas), to
prevent resuspension, the recommended approach is to remove the affected
top soil from the area, replacing it with uncontaminated soil,  and
disposing of the affected soil.

4)     Given the decline in the number of monitoring sites, how is
attainment currently demonstrated?  How would it be demonstrated if a
lower NAAQS were adopted?  Would monitoring be similar or identical for
both quarterly and monthly?

Response:

	NAAQS compliance is demonstrated based on available monitoring data.
Areas that do not have monitors would be classified as "Unclassifiable"
if the EPA were to redo Pb designations.

	The NAAQS would still be demonstrated based on monitoring data if the
NAAQS is lowered.  However, we have noted that the current monitoring
network may not be adequate for identifying areas with the potential to
exceed the NAAQS, especially if the NAAQS is lowered.  As such, we plan
to amend the monitoring requirements for Pb in a way that would lead to
better monitoring coverage in those areas with the potential to exceed
the NAAQS.  This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 5 of the
ANPR.

	Currently, monitoring is required on a 1 in 6 day sampling frequency.
This would only provide only 5 samples on average per month.  We believe
that 5 samples per month would not lead to a statistically significant
estimate of the average for the month.  As such, we are considering
changing the sampling frequency to a 1 in 3 day schedule.  We are also
considering other options (a sliding frequency based on previous Pb
concentrations) to minimize the monitoring burden where there is little
to potential to exceed the NAAQS.  This issue is discussed in more
detail in Section 5 of the ANPR.

5)     Slide 19 suggests that de-listing has been an option.  What
arguments have been proposed toward delisting, and how has EPA responded
to those arguments?

Response:  Arguments proposed toward delisting include recognition that
ambient air concentrations have been reduced substantially since the
standard was set in 1978 and that the Agency has other programs that now
exist to address public health concerns associated with lead, including
the hazardous air pollutant program now in place as a result of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments.  More specifically, in comments offered on the
first draft OAQPS Staff Paper, the Battery Council International has
cited legal arguments to support their view that the Agency has the
authority to delist lead as a criteria document and has additionally
stated that the Agency should delist lead (Docket #
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735-0419(1).1).  Discussion of this issue in the final
Staff Paper, notes that notwithstanding changes in air lead
concentrations and emissions, lead continues to be emitted into the air
from numerous and diverse mobile and stationary sources (CAA Section
108(a)(1) ).  Further, currently available studies provide evidence of
adverse health effects associated with blood lead levels and
environmental exposures well below those previously identified, and
there is no discernible threshold for such effects.  The Staff Paper
concludes that consideration not be given to delisting lead.  Delisting
is briefly discussed on pages 86-88 of the ANPR, and on page 102 of the
notice, the Agency solicits comment on the issue.

Best regards; have a good weekend

heidi

(202) 395-4551


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19183-19185]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6928; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-018-AD;
Amendment 39-18864; AD 2017-09-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters (Airbus Helicopters) Model
MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This AD requires
installing rivets to the air inlet cover rings (rings). This AD was
prompted by reports of rings detaching. The actions of this AD are
intended to prevent the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 31, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of May 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at https://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub/FO/scripts/myFO_login.php. You may review the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6928.

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-2016-
6928; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any
incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On January 5, 2017, at 82 FR 1252, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 (including configuration C-2e) helicopters, serial
number 9004 through 9725, and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters, serial
number 20003 through 20045, with an air inlet part number (P/N)
B212M20C1005 installed. The NPRM proposed inspecting each ring and
determining if it is loose, and gluing and installing rivets to the
rings. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent a ring from
detaching, which could then become stuck between the air inlet and the
cyclic stick, restricting movement of the cyclic stick. This condition
could result in loss of helicopter control.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2016-0001, dated January 4, 2016,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters Model MBB-BK 117 C-2, Model MBB-BK117 C-2e, Model MBB-BK117
D-2, and MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters. EASA advises that a ring detached
and got stuck between the air inlet and the cyclic stick on a Model
MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopter and an inspection on another helicopter found
a second loose cover ring. EASA states that this condition, if not
corrected, could affect the cyclic stick's range of movement, possibly
resulting in degraded control of the helicopter. The EASA AD
consequently requires inspections and reinforcement of the rings'
installation.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

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

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Model MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters. This AD
does not because this model does not have an FAA type certificate. The
EASA AD requires compliance for Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters within
400 hours time-in-service (TIS), while this AD requires compliance
within 100 hours TIS. The EASA AD requires marking the air inlet with
the applicable alert service bulletin once it is glued and riveted,
while this AD does not.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-
BK117 C-2-21A-011 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and Model MBB-BK117 C-2e
helicopters and ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-21A-004 for Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 and
Model MBB-BK 117 D-2m helicopters. Both ASBs are Revision 0 and dated
November 16, 2015. This service information introduces an improved
attachment method for the ring using rivets. The ASBs specify
inspecting the air inlet to determine whether the ring is loose, and
then gluing and riveting the ring to the air inlet at different
timeframes, depending on whether it is loose.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 141 helicopters of U.S. Registry
and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these
estimates, we expect the following costs:

    Manually inspecting the left and right air inlet cover rings
requires a half work-hour for a labor cost of $43 per helicopter. No
parts are needed, so the U.S. fleet cost totals $6,063.
    Riveting the rings requires 2 work-hours for a labor cost of $170
per helicopter. The cost for parts is minimal for a U.S. fleet cost of
$23,970.

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

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2017-09-02 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Amendment 39-18864;
Docket No. FAA-2016-6928; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-018-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK 117 C-2 (including configuration C-2e) helicopters, serial
number 9004 through 9725, and Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters,
serial number 20003 through 20045, certificated in any category,
with an air inlet part number (P/N) B212M20C1005 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a detached air inlet
cover ring (ring), which could become stuck between the air inlet
and the cyclic stick, restricting movement of the cyclic stick. This
condition could result in loss of helicopter control.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 31, 2017.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), manually inspect
each ring to determine if it is loose. If a ring is loose, before
further flight, glue the ring on the air inlet using an adhesive (CM
687 or CM 6044 or equivalent) as shown in Figure 1 of Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB-BK117 C-2-21A-011,
Revision 0, dated November 16, 2015 (ASB C-2-21A-011), or ASB MBB-
BK117 D-2-21A-004, Revision 0, dated November 16, 2015 (ASB D-2-21A-
004), as applicable to your model helicopter. Rivet the ring to the
air inlet in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraphs 3.B.4.2 through 3.B.4.4 of ASB C-2-21A-011 or paragraphs
3.B.3.2 through 3.B.3.4 of ASB D-2-21A-004.
    (2) If a ring is not loose, within 400 hours TIS:
    (i) Manually inspect the ring to determine if it is loose. If
the ring is loose, before further flight, glue the ring on the air
inlet using an adhesive (CM 687 or CM 6044 or equivalent) as shown
in Figure 1 of ASB C-2-21A-011 or ASB D-2-21A-004.
    (ii) Rivet the ring to the air inlet in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.3.2 through 3.B.3.4 of
ASB C-2-21A-011 or paragraphs 3.B.2.2 through 3.B.2.4 of ASB D-2-
21A-004.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install an air
inlet P/N B212M20C1005 on any helicopter unless the ring has been
riveted to the air inlet in accordance with the requirements of this
AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0001, dated January 4, 2016. You may view
the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. FAA-2016-6928.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2150, Cabin
Cooling System.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 C-2-21A-
011, Revision 0, dated November 16, 2015.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 D-2-
21A-004, Revision 0, dated November 16, 2015.
    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at https://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub/FO/scripts/myFO_login.php.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, call

(202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 18, 2017.
Scott A. Horn,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-08185 Filed 4-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P