[Federal Register: September 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56464-56468]
[DOCID:fr29se08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0638; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-035-AD;
Amendment 39-15680; AD 2008-20-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F,
and 382G Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G series airplanes. This
AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by
incorporating new airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems to
satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. This
AD also requires the accomplishment of certain fuel system
modifications, the initial inspections of certain repetitive fuel
system limitations to phase in those inspections, and repair if
necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition
sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations,
repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable
fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 3, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 3,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document 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: Robert A. Bosak, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite
450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (770) 703-
6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G series airplanes.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2008 (73 FR
33740). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations for
fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
(SFAR 88) requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the
accomplishment of certain fuel system modifications, the initial
inspections of certain repetitive fuel system limitations to phase in
those inspections, and repair if necessary.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, Lockheed has issued Service Bulletin 382-
28-20, Revision 5, dated June 19, 2008, to reflect changes to the
required kits. In the NPRM, we referred to Revision 4 of the service
bulletin, dated May 21, 2007, as an additional source of service
information for installing ground fault interrupters (GFIs) and flame
arrestors for protection of the fuel system. The procedures in Revision
5 of the service bulletin are essentially the same as those in Revision
4. Therefore, we have revised Table 1 of this AD to refer to Revision 5
of the service bulletin as the appropriate source of service
information for installing the GFIs and flame arrestors.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the four commenters.

Requests To Revise Compliance Time

    Lynden Air Cargo (LAC) and Safair request that we extend the
compliance time from 24 months to 36 months for doing the modification
in paragraph (h) of the NPRM. As justification, the commenters state
that additional time is needed to procure parts and to accomplish the
modifications during a heavy maintenance visit.
    We agree to revise the compliance time in paragraph (h) of this AD
to 36 months. Extending the compliance time will not adversely affect
safety, and it will allow operators to accomplish the modifications,
initial inspections, and repairs during regularly scheduled maintenance
at a base where special equipment and trained maintenance personnel
will be available if necessary.

Request To Revise Paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM

    LAC requests that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM to refer
to paragraph 2.C.(3)(e) of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-22,
Revision 3, dated March 28, 2008, instead of paragraph 2.C.(3)(c). LAC
believes that ``2.C.(3)(c)'' is a typographical error because all of
the other critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL)
items referred to in paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM address wiring
practices and resistance measurements.
    We agree with LAC's request and have revised paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD accordingly. The CDCCLs referred to in paragraphs 2.C.(3)(e),
2.C.(3)(h), 2.C.(4)(a), 2.C.(5)(c), 2.C.(7)(h), and 2.C.(8) of Lockheed
Service Bulletin 382-28-22 are all items that can be accomplished in
accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision 3, dated
November 30, 2006.

Request To Revise the Method of Compliance in Paragraph (g)(1) of the
NPRM

    LAC requests that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM as
follows: ``* * * do the applicable actions in accordance with the
procedures specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision
3, dated November 30, 2006, or a method approved in accordance with
paragraph (k) of this AD.'' Paragraph

(g)(1) of the NPRM specifies to ``* * * do the applicable actions using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (k) of this AD. Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision
3, dated November 30, 2006, is one approved method.'' LAC states that
the language provided in the NPRM could be interpreted to mean that an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) is always required.
    We partially agree. We have revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to
specify doing the ``* * * applicable actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19,
Revision 3, dated November 30, 2006.'' Under the provisions of
paragraph (k) of this AD, we will consider requests for approval of an
AMOC, so it is not necessary to restate so in paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD. We have also deleted the last sentence of paragraph (g)(1) of the
NPRM, which states ``Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision 3,
dated November 30, 2006, is one approved method.'' We would like to
clarify that the original language in the NPRM would not have required
operators to always request an AMOC because that last sentence already
provided one approved method.

Request To Clarify the Intent of Paragraph (i) of the NPRM

    LAC interprets paragraph (i) of the NPRM to mean that the NPRM will
not be revised to incorporate revised service bulletins. LAC also
interprets that paragraph to mean that approval of any revised service
bulletins by the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO)
constitutes approval for including these revised service bulletins into
its fuel system maintenance program.
    We infer that LAC requests that we confirm whether LAC's
interpretations are correct. We agree that LAC's interpretations of the
language in the NPRM are correct. However, we have revised paragraph
(i) of this AD by removing reference to the use of a ``later revision''
of the applicable service information to be consistent with the FAA
policy and Office of the Federal Register regulations. We might
consider approving the use of a later revision of the service
information as an AMOC to this AD, as provided by paragraph (k) of this
AD.

Request for Clarification of Compliance With Certain Regulations

    LAC asks if compliance with the NPRM constitutes compliance with
section 121.1113 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121.1113).
If so, LAC requests that the AD state so. LAC cites 14 CFR 121.1113(f),
which states ``* * * any later fuel tank system revisions must be
submitted to the Principal Inspector for review and approval.'' LAC
interprets this regulation to mean that, even after the Atlanta ACO has
approved a revised service bulletin, LAC would still be required to
obtain approval from the principal inspector to incorporate the revised
service bulletin into its fuel system maintenance program.
    LAC also points out that the preamble of the NPRM states that the
NPRM would also allow accomplishing the maintenance program revision in
accordance with later revisions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-22
as an acceptable method of compliance if they are approved by the
Manager, Atlanta ACO. LAC interprets the phrase ``would also allow'' to
mean that LAC has the option, after ACO approval, to incorporate the
revised service bulletin into its maintenance program, and that it
would neither be mandatory, nor could a principal inspector require the
incorporation of the revised service bulletin unless this AD was
superseded to mandate the revised service bulletin.
    Yes, we agree that even after ACO approval of a later revision of
the service bulletin, an operator would still be required to obtain
approval from the principal inspector before a later FAA-approved
service bulletin could be incorporated into its maintenance program.
Further, as stated previously, we have removed the reference for using
later revisions of the service bulletin approved by the Atlanta ACO.
Operators may request approval for the use of later revisions of the
service information as an AMOC to this AD, as provided by paragraph (k)
of this AD. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Revise Applicability

    A commenter, William L. Davis, states that we might have
inadvertently omitted certain U.S.-registered Model C-130 airplanes
from the applicability of the NPRM. The commenter refers us to Type
Certificate Data Sheets A15NM, A30NM, A31NM, A33NM, A34SO, A39CE, A5SO,
and TQ3CH. The commenter asks if we intentionally excluded these
airplanes from the NPRM.
    Yes, we have intentionally excluded the airplanes that the
commenter refers to because they are restricted category airplanes,
which are not affected by this AD. This AD applies only to Model 382,
382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G series airplanes, which are transport
category airplanes. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Reduce the Estimated Number of Affected Airplanes

    Lockheed states that its data show that the number of U.S.-
registered airplanes that would be affected by the NPRM is 14.
    We infer Lockheed requests that we reduce the estimated number of
affected airplanes from 21 to 14 in the Costs of Compliance section of
this AD. We disagree because we have researched this issue and
determined that this AD applies to 24 U.S.-registered airplanes. Of
these airplanes, 14 are active and 10 are inactive. The inactive
airplanes need to be included in our estimate to provide for any
airplanes that might return to service in the future. Therefore, we
have revised our estimate in this AD to 24 airplanes, and we have
updated the Estimated Costs table of this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise the Compliance Time in Paragraph (g) of the NPRM

    LAC requests that we revise the compliance date in paragraph (g) of
the AD from December 16, 2008, to December 17, 2008. LAC points out
that, in the Explanation of Compliance Time section of the NPRM, we
specified that the compliance date is December 16, 2008, for
regulations addressing fuel tank safety issues. However, LAC asserts
that the actual date that operators must be in compliance with this AD
is December 17, 2008. As justification, LAC cites section 14 CFR
121.1113(c), which states: ``After December 16, 2008, no certificate
holder may operate an airplane * * * unless the maintenance program for
that airplane has been revised to include applicable inspections,
procedures, and limitations for fuel tanks systems.''
    We disagree with changing the compliance date. ``After December 16,
2008'' means that operators must revise their maintenance programs to
address fuel tank systems on or before December 16, 2008, in order to
be in compliance after December 16, 2008. Therefore, the compliance
date is December 16, 2008. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Revise the Compliance Time in Paragraph (h) of the NPRM

    Lockheed points out that the compliance time in paragraph (h) of
the NPRM appears to conflict with the compliance date of December 16,
2008, for complying with SFAR 88 regulations, as specified in the
Explanation of Compliance Time section and in paragraph (g) of the
NPRM.
    We infer Lockheed requests that we revise the compliance time in
paragraph

(h) of this AD to December 16, 2008. We disagree because 14 CFR
121.1113(c) requires only that operators revise their maintenance
programs to include applicable inspections, procedures, and limitations
for fuel tank systems on or before December 16, 2008. Further, to avoid
unduly burdening operators, it is necessary to provide a 36-month grace
period for accomplishing the modifications, initial inspections, and
repairs specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. We have not changed the
AD in this regard.

Request To Revise the Wire Separation Requirement

    LAC requests that paragraph 2.C.(8)(a)2a of Lockheed Service
Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision 3, dated November 30, 2006, be revised to
specify that ``* * * between FS 245.0 and FS 597.0 (along the wing
trailing edge) where wires pass through cutouts in the structure, \1/2\
to 2 inches in separation is permitted between wire bundles.'' The
service bulletin currently states this separation allowance is between
fuselage station (FS) 245.0 and FS 457.0. However, LAC states the ``FS
457.0'' appears to be an error because the wing trailing edge is at FS
597.0.
    We disagree that FS 457.0 should be revised to FS 597.0. We have
verified with the Lockheed that FS 457.0 is the correct location. This
fuselage station corresponds to the wing root area, which is outside of
the pressure vessel and where the wires pass along the wing trailing
edge. Lockheed intends to revise the service bulletin to clarify the
wire separation requirement and provide additional information. No
change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Provide Installation Instructions for the GFIs and Flame
Arrestors

    LAC states that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-20, Revision 4,
dated May 21, 2007, is an informational and planning service bulletin.
LAC also states that the service bulletin does not contain any
instructions for installing the GFIs and flame arrestors, and that it
instead refers to Installation Kit Drawing 3359620 for those
instructions. LAC states that it cannot comment without being able to
see the drawing and requests that the drawing is made available. Also,
LAC asks what approved data is used for the installation of the kits
and who approved it.
    We acknowledge LAC's comments. The FAA approved the data for the
installation kits through design analysis and testing. The installation
was then conformed and tested on a Model 382 series airplane. We have
coordinated with Lockheed and it has stated that the installation
drawings were made available to LAC the first week of August 2008.
Also, Lockheed has stated that it intends to include that information
directly in a future revision of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-20.
If the service bulletin is revised after issuance of this AD, we may
consider approving the use of a later revision of the service
information as an AMOC with this AD, as provided by paragraph (k) of
this AD. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Standardize Approval Statements

    LAC requests that we use the following FAA approval statement in
service bulletins: ``Approved by FAA Atlanta Certification Office.''
LAC states that the approval statements are either inconsistent or non-
existent for the service bulletins referenced in the NPRM.
    We acknowledge LAC's request. However, this request is best
presented to the airplane manufacturer, who develops and includes the
applicable approval statement in the service bulletin. No change to the
AD is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 24 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate
of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
             Action                 Work hours         Parts         Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                      product        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision....               1            None             $80              24          $1,920
Installation of new, improved                 12         $10,288          11,248              24         269,952
 fuel dump masts................
Dry bay zonal inspection,                    952            None          76,160              24       1,827,840
 inspection and repair of static
 ground terminals, marking the
 wiring for the fuel quantity
 indicating system, initial
 inspection of lightning and
 static bonding jumpers.........
Installation of GFIs and flame               120         115,000         124,600              24       2,990,400
 arrestors......................
Initial inspection of GFIs and                 8            None             640              24          15,360
 flame arrestors................
Installation of lightning                    910          10,000          82,800              24       1,987,200
 bonding jumpers................
Sealant application.............             320            None          25,600              24         614,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-20-01 Lockheed: Amendment 39-15680. Docket No. FAA-2008-0638;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-035-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 3,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Lockheed Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F,
and 382G series airplanes, certificated in any category.

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

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion
and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Service Bulletin Reference

    (f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-22,
Revision 3, dated March 28, 2008.

Maintenance Program Revision

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate the fuel system limitations
(FSLs) and the critical design configuration control limitations
(CDCCLs) specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin; except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and
(g)(3) of this AD, and except that the modifications and initial
inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the
compliance time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) For the CDCCLs specified in paragraphs 2.C.(3)(e),
2.C.(3)(h), 2.C.(4)(a), 2.C.(5)(c), 2.C.(7)(h), and 2.C.(8) of the
service bulletin, do the applicable actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19,
Revision 3, dated November 30, 2006.
    (2) Where paragraph 2.C.(1)(c) of the service bulletin specifies
to change the maintenance program to indicate that repetitive
inspections of the lightning and static bonding jumpers must be done
in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-21, instead do
the repetitive inspections in accordance with Lockheed Service
Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision 3, dated November 30, 2006.
    (3) Where the service bulletin specifies to inspect, this AD
requires doing a general visual inspection.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection
is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior area,
installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or
irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within touching
distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to
ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection area. This
level of inspection is made under normally available lighting
conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or
droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''

Fuel System Modifications, Initial Inspections, and Repair if Necessary

    (h) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
applicable actions specified in Table 1 of this AD, and repair any
discrepancy before further flight, in accordance with the service
bulletin.

             Table 1--Modifications and Initial Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Additional source of service
                 Action                   information for accomplishing
                                                    the action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airplanes having any serial number   Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
 prior to 4962: Install new, improved     28-9, dated May 13, 1983.
 fuel dump masts in accordance with
 paragraph 2.C.(1)(d) of the service
 bulletin.
Mark the fuel quantity indicating        Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
 system (FQIS) wires in accordance with   28-19, Revision 3, dated
 paragraphs 2.C.(1)(a)2, 2.C.(4)(b),      November 30, 2006.
 and 2.C.(4)(c) of the service bulletin.
Do the dry bay zonal inspection and      Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
 inspect the static ground terminals of   28-19, Revision 3, dated
 the fuel system plumbing in accordance   November 30, 2006.
 with paragraph 2.C.(1)(a) of the
 service bulletin.
Install ground fault interrupters        Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
 (GFIs) and flame arrestors for           28-20, Revision 5, dated June
 protection of the fuel system in         19, 2008.
 accordance with paragraphs 2.C.(1)(b)
 and 2.C.(7)(c) of the service bulletin.
Inspect the GFIs for protection of the   Paragraph 2.C.(2) of the
 fuel system in accordance with           service bulletin.
 paragraph 2.C.(1)(b)1 of the service
 bulletin.
Install the lightning bonding jumpers    Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
 (straps) in accordance with paragraphs   28-21, Revision 2, dated
 2.C.(1)(c) and 2.C.(6)(a) of the         November 20, 2006.
 service bulletin.
Inspect the lightning and static         Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
 bonding jumpers (straps) in accordance   28-19, Revision 3, dated
 with paragraphs 2.C.(1)(c) of the        November 30, 2006.
 service bulletin.

Apply a certain sealant to the interior  Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-
 of the main wing fuel tanks; and apply   28-24, Revision 1, dated
 a certain sealant to the all external    November 5, 2007, including
 fuel tank nose caps, mid sections, and   the Errata Notice, dated
 tail sections; as applicable; in         January 7, 2008.
 accordance with paragraphs
 2.C.(1)(e)1, 2.C.(1)(e)3, and
 2.C.(7)(i)1 of the service bulletin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

    (i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals,
or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

No Reporting Requirement

    (j) Although Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision 3,
dated November 30, 2006, specifies to notify Lockheed of any
discrepancies found during inspection, this AD does not require that
action.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Robert A. Bosak, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and
Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, One Crown Center, 1895
Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone
(770) 703-6094; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-19, Revision
3, dated November 30, 2006; and Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-28-22,
Revision 3, dated March 28, 2008; as applicable; to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 11, 2008.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-22035 Filed 9-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93-94]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0008]

Request for Nominations on Public Advisory Panels of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any
industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of
nonvoting industry representatives to serve on certain panels of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee (MDAC or Committee) in the Center
for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) notify FDA in writing. FDA
is also requesting nominations for nonvoting industry representatives
to serve on certain device panels of the MDAC in the CDRH. A nominee
may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve
as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted
for current and upcoming vacancies effective with this notice.

DATES: Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests must send a letter stating that interest to the FDA by
February 2, 2022 (see sections I and II of this document for further
details). Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates
should be sent to FDA by February 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from industry organizations
interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting
industry representative nomination should be sent to Margaret Ames (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for nonvoting
industry representatives should be submitted electronically by
accessing the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or
by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member of an
FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's website
at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Ames, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5213, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency is requesting nominations for
nonvoting industry representatives to the panels listed in the table in
this document.

I. Medical Devices Advisory Committee

    The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational devices and makes
recommendations for their regulation. The panels engage in a number of
activities to fulfill the functions the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) envisions for device advisory panels. With the
exception of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel,
according to its specialty area, advises the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs (the Commissioner) regarding recommended classification or
reclassification of devices into one of three regulatory categories;
advises on any possible risks to health associated with the use of
devices; advises on formulation of product development protocols;
reviews premarket approval applications for medical devices; reviews
guidelines and guidance documents; recommends exemption of certain
devices from the application of portions of the FD&C Act; advises on
the necessity to ban a device; and responds to requests from the agency
to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems
concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices. With the exception
of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, each panel, according
to its specialty area, may also make appropriate recommendations to the
Commissioner on issues relating to the design of clinical studies
regarding the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational
devices. The Committee also provides recommendations to the
Commissioner or designee on complexity categorization of in vitro
diagnostics under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of
1988.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Panels                              Function
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circulatory System Devices Panel..  Reviews and evaluate data concerning
                                     the safety and effectiveness of
                                     marketed and investigational
                                     devices for use in the circulatory
                                     and vascular systems and makes
                                     appropriate recommendations to the
                                     Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices   Reviews and evaluates data
 Panel.                              concerning the safety and
                                     effectiveness of marketed and
                                     investigational devices for use in
                                     obstetrics and gynecology and makes
                                     appropriate recommendations to the
                                     Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Radiological Devices Panel........  Reviews and evaluates data
                                     concerning the safety and
                                     effectiveness of marketed and
                                     investigational diagnostic or
                                     therapeutic radiological and
                                     nuclear medicine devices and makes
                                     appropriate recommendations to the
                                     Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Qualifications

    Persons nominated for the device panels should be full-time
employees of firms that manufacture products that would come before the
panel, or consulting firms that represent manufacturers, or have
similar appropriate ties to industry.

III. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of
this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send
a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching
a complete list of all such organizations; and a list of all nominees
along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is
the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer

with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the
receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to
represent industry interests for a particular device panel. The
interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in
selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60
days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent
industry interests.

IV. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Nomination must include a current, complete
r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum vitae for each nominee including
current business address and telephone number, email address if
available, and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form
available at the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal
(see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of publication of this document (see
DATES). Nominations must also specify the advisory panel for which the
nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the
nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will
forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in
participating in the selection process for the particular device panels
listed in the table. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting
industry representatives will not participate in the selection
process).
    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and, therefore encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: December 27, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-28453 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43226-43230]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18225]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0972]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Bayou Liberty, Mile 2.0, St.
Tammany Parish, Slidell, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to change the operating schedule
for the State Route 433 (S433) bridge across Liberty Bayou, mile 2.0,
at Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. The proposed rule provides
for an opening upon one-hour notice from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., allowing the
Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, owner of the
bridge, to reduce the hours of manned operation of the bridge in order
to make more efficient use of personnel and operating resources. This
Supplemental Notice follows a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published
in the Federal Register [USCG-2010-0972] on November 22, 2010 (75 FR
71061).

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before September 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0972 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: 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-
0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Jim Wetherington; Bridge Administration Branch,
Eighth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0972), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rules'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0972'' in the ``Keyword''
box. Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the
``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them
by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0972'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    In October 2010, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (LDOTD), the owner of the bridge, replaced the existing
S433 pontoon bridge over Bayou Liberty, mile 2.0, St. Tammany Parish,
Slidell, LA with a new modern swing bridge. Due to the fact that not
all vessels would now require the bridge to open for the passage of
vessels, LDOTD requested a modification to the existing requirements
for giving notice to open the bridge. The Coast Guard published a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register [USCG-2010-0972]
on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71061). The proposed rule would have
changed the notice required for an opening of the bridge from 7 a.m. to
7 p.m. from on signal to two hours notice. The notice required for an
opening from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. would have remained two hours as required
by the existing regulations.
    At the same time, a test deviation was published in the Federal
Register (75 FR 71017) to allow mariners to test the proposed change
for 30 days. Thirteen comments were received either by e-mail or
through the docket but only four were within the time specified. All 13
comments were considered, and are discussed and addressed in this
SNPRM.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    As stated above, we received 13 submissions commenting on the NPRM.
Five comments expressed concern with testing a new opening procedure
during the winter months and relying on recorded openings during
construction or the recreational boating off season. One comment
specifically stated that Bayou Liberty is primarily a recreational
waterway and several comments referenced residential and recreational
use. The Coast Guard agrees that better results will likely result from
a test period during a season that better reflects the recreational and
residential use of the waterway and as a result issued a new temporary
deviation to run from June 1, 2011 through September 9, 2011, to test a
revised opening schedule and it was published in Federal Register (76
FR 28311) on May 17, 2011. The current test deviation will provide a
record of openings during the spring and summer months, including
recreational boating during a couple of holiday weekends. So, the
comparison between recorded openings during prior years and recorded
openings during the current test period will provide a better
representation of the bridge's use and need, specifically during
holidays. While one comment mentioned a 12 month test period, the Coast
Guard feels that this would be unnecessary and impracticable. As stated
above, the current test period will be during the

higher traffic season and will be compared to the prior year's recorded
openings. Lengthening a test period to 12 months would incorporate
lower traffic months already determined to be a poor representation of
the bridge's use, unnecessarily delaying an appropriate final opening
schedule.
    Four comments mention concern with the impact this rule would have
on property value if certain vessels are not able to easily transit
through the bridge. The Coast Guard understands this concern and the
current test deviation will provide a record of the type of traffic
using and attempting to use the bridge during the high use season.
    Four comments indicated a concern with evacuation during threat of
a hurricane or tropical storm. Should emergency evacuation be
necessary, the bridge would operate under emergency procedures already
in place pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, 33 CFR part 117.
Specifically, 33 CFR 117.59 states that for the duration of occurrences
hazardous to safety or navigation such as floods, freshets and damage
to the bridge of fender system, the District Commander may require the
owner of an operational drawbridge listed in this sub part to have the
bridge attended full time and open on signal. But, 33 CFR 117.33
provides that ``[d]raw bridges need not open for the passage of vessels
during periods of natural disasters or civil disorders declared by the
appropriate authorities unless otherwise provided for or directed to do
so by the District Commander.''
    Four comments expressed a concern that the two-hour request time
was excessive during the day. The Coast Guard agrees and the bridge
owner agreed to the new test deviation and this SNPRM proposing a one-
hour request time during the day, cutting the request time during the
day in half.
    Two comments expressed difficulty with reaching the point of
contact to request an opening. The Coast Guard contacted the bridge
owner, confirming that accurate contact information is posted. The
bridge owner also stated that they do periodic tests of the phone
system and have never had an issue.
    One comment expressed concern that the majority of comments
submitted were concerned with large boats and that smaller boat owners
are not as concerned about a change in opening procedures because the
replacement bridge is high enough to go under. The new test period
during a higher traffic season is expected to provide a better
representation of the waterway use by boats requiring the bridge to
open.
    Finally, two comments proposed combining bridge-tender duties with
other bridges operating in the vicinity of this bridge and stated that
a full-time tender was represented as part of the new bridge. The Coast
Guard contacted LDOTD, the bridge owner, and confirmed that LTOTD is
considering a solution regarding bridge-tender duties and if they may
be combined.
    In summary, the time of year that the original NPRM and deviation
were issued did not capture a true representation of the bridge's use
and how a new operating schedule may impact such use. The original test
period was during the winter when vessel traffic was considerably less
than the summer months which the new test and comment period will
cover.
    Based on the limited data received and the aforementioned comments,
LDOTD changed their request to modify the requirements for giving
notice to open the bridge. Specifically, LDOTD lessened the request
time required for opening during the day. This supplemental notice
proposes to have the bridge open on signal if at least one-hour notice
is given from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and two-hour notice is given from 7 p.m.
to 7 a.m.
    As previously stated, the Coast Guard issued a new temporary
deviation to test the newly proposed schedule and it was published in
Federal Register (76 FR 28311) on May 17, 2011. The test deviation is
scheduled to run from June 1, 2011 through September 9, 2011. During
and following completion of the test deviation, the Coast Guard will
analyze the data collected from the tender logs and vehicular transits
and review the comments received to this SNPRM to determine if the
requested modifications to the operating schedule can be made
permanent.
    The replacement bridge has a vertical clearance of 7.59 feet above
the 2% flowline, elevation 2.5 feet (NAVD 1988) in the closed-to-
navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.469, the draw of the S433 Bridge, mile
2.0, at Slidell, shall open on signal, except that between 7 p.m. and 7
a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least a two-hour notice is
given.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    LDOTD is requesting a new regulation to open the bridge on signal
with one-hour notice from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and with two-hour notice
from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Presently, the bridge opens on signal, except
that between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at
least a two-hour notice is given. This rule proposes to change the
requirement that a bridge tender open the bridge on signal during the
day. The proposed change is to require that the bridge be opened with a
one-hour notice during the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. time period each day. So,
the bridge would open within one hour of a mariner calling the number
posted at the bridge rather than having a bridge tender present from 7
a.m. to 7 p.m. each day. The area above the bridge site is an area
normally transited by local mariners. It is believed that these
mariners will be able to contact the bridge owner before their planned
departure from their docks. The reason for the requested change in the
operation schedule is that a new swing bridge has been constructed with
a vertical clearance of 7.59 feet above the 2% flowline, elevation 2.5
feet (NAVD 1988) in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in
the open-to-navigation. This new bridge replaces a pontoon bridge that
required bridge openings for all vessels. LDOTD has indicated that
bridge opening requests have decreased significantly and the bridge
owner feels that they can maintain a quality level of service without
keeping a tender on the bridge at all times.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    The public would need to notify the bridge owner of a required
opening one hour in advance from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., rather than on
signal. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., two-hour notice will be required.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of vessels needing to transit the bridge between 7 a.m. and 7
p.m. with less than one-hour advance notice.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or e-mail Jim Wetherington; Bridge
Administration Branch, Eighth Coast Guard District, telephone 504-671-
2128, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a 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 proposed 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed 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 proposed rule would not cause 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Sec.  117.469 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  117.469  Liberty Bayou.

    The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 2.0, at Slidell, shall open on
signal with a one hour notice from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to
7 a.m., two-hour notice will be required, seven days a week.

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Mary E. Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-18225 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P