[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 75 (Monday, April 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21796-21797]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2012-0029]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for public comment on an extension of a currently
approved collection.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at
the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590 by any of the following methods.
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Supplementary
Information section of this document. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
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 DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://Docket
Info.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the street address listed above. The internet
access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Pyne,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking (NVS-123), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W43-457,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper

performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected and;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: 49 CFR 571.403, ``Platform lift systems for motor
vehicles,'' and 49 CFR 571.404, ``Platform lift installations in motor
vehicles.''
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0621.
    Form Number: None.

Background

    FMVSS No. 403 establishes minimum performance standards for
platform lifts intended for installation in motor vehicles to assist
wheelchair users and other persons with limited mobility in entering
and leaving a vehicle. The standard's purpose is to prevent injuries
and fatalities to passengers and bystanders during the operation of
platform lifts. The related standard FMVSS No. 404, places specific
requirements on vehicle manufacturers or alterers who install platform
lifts in new vehicles. Lift manufacturers must certify that their lifts
meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 403 and must declare in the owner's
manual, the installation instructions, and on the operating instruction
label that the lift is certified. Certification of compliance with
FMVSS No. 404 is included on the vehicle certification label required
on all motor vehicles under part 567 of 49 CFR. As a result of the
requirements in the two standards, lift manufacturers must produce an
insert that is placed in the vehicle owner's manual. They also must
produce lift installation instructions, as well as either one or two
labels, to be placed near the controls for the lift. The latter
illustrate and describe procedures for operating the lift.
    Our estimates of burden and cost to lift manufacturers to meet
these requirements are given below. There is no burden to the general
public.
    Respondents: Platform lift manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers/
alterers that install platform lifts in new motor vehicles before first
vehicle sale.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Annual Burden

    [ssquf] Estimated burden for lift manufacturers to produce an
insert for vehicle owner manuals stating the lift's platform operating
volume, maintenance schedule, and lift operating procedures, as
applicable: 10 manufacturers x 24 hrs. amortized over 5 yrs. = 48 hours
per year.
    [ssquf] Estimated burden for lift manufacturers to produce
installation instructions identifying the types of vehicles on which a
lift is designed to be installed: 10 manufacturers x 24 hrs. amortized
over 5 yrs. = 48 hours per year.
    [ssquf] Estimated burden for lift manufacturers to produce a
placard and/or labeling on or near the lift control panel to identify
the operating functions: 10 manufacturers x 24 hrs. amortized over 5
yrs. = 48 hours per year.
    [ssquf] Estimated burden for lift manufacturers to produce a
placard and/or labeling on or near the lift control panel to identify
the lift backup operating procedures: 10 manufacturers x 24 hrs.
amortized over 5 yrs. = 48 hours per year.

Estimated Cost to Lift Manufacturers To Produce

    [ssquf] Owner's manual insert--27, 398 lifts x $0.04 per page x 1
page = $1,095.92.
    [ssquf] Lift installation instructions--27,398 lifts x $0.04 per
page x 1 page \1\ = $1,095.92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although lift installation instructions are considerably
more than one page, lift manufacturers already provide lift
installation instructions in the normal course of business and one
additional page should be adequate to allow the inclusion of
specific information required by NHTSA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Labeling/placard for lift operating procedures--27,398
lifts x $0.13 per label = $3,561.74.
    [ssquf] Labeling/placard for lift backup operating procedures--
27,398 lifts x $0.13 per label = $3,561.74.
    Total estimated number of respondents: 10.
    Total estimated hour burden per year = 192 hours.
    Total estimated annual cost = $9,315.32.
    Public Comments: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the Department's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the Department to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-08961 Filed 4-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 38286-38288]
[DOCID:fr03jy08-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58049; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Fees for Options on the Full-Size Nasdaq 100 Index and
Options on the Mini Nasdaq 100 Index

June 27, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 13, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Phlx proposes to assess equity option charges, as opposed to index
option charges, on: (1) Options on the full value of the Nasdaq 100
Index \5\ traded under the symbol NDX (the ``Full-size Nasdaq 100
Index''); and (2) options on the one-tenth of the value of the Nasdaq
100 Index traded under the symbol MNX (the ``Mini Nasdaq 100 Index'')
(collectively referred to herein as the ``Nasdaq Index Products''). \6\
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to charge the Nasdaq Index Products,
which are index options, in a similar manner that it charges for equity
options, except that there will be a fee assessed for customer
transactions.\7\ Specifically, for purposes of the option transaction
charge, the Exchange proposes to adopt a specific customer option
transaction charge of $0.12 per contract side customer execution
transaction fee on the Nasdaq Index Products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NASDAQ[supreg], NASDAQ-100[supreg] and NASDAQ-100
Index[supreg] are registered trademarks of The NASDAQ OMX Group,
Inc. (which with its affiliates are the ``Corporations'') and are
licensed for use by the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. in
connection with the trading of options products based on the NASDAQ-
100 Index[supreg]. The options products have not been passed on by
the Corporations as to their legality or suitability. The options
products are not issued, endorsed, sold, or promoted by the
Corporations. The Corporations make no warranties and bear no
liability with respect to the options products.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57936 (June 6,
2008), 73 FR 33481 (June 12, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-36) (proposed rule
change relating to the listing and trading of options on the Nasdaq
Index Products).
    \7\ Phlx has clarified that the index option transaction charge
for customer executions, which is currently $0.40 per contract,
applies to broker-dealer transactions. Pursuant to this proposed
rule change, Phlx has stated that broker-dealer transactions in MNX
and MDX index options will be assessed the equity option transaction
charges as set forth on the Exchange's current Summary of Equity
Option and RUT and RMN Charges fee schedule. Pursuant to that fee
schedule, the broker-dealer equity option transaction charges are
either $0.45 per contract for AUTOM-delivered orders or $0.25 per
contract for non-AUTOM-delivered orders. Email communication to
Heather Seidel, Assistant Director, Division of Trading and Markets
(``Division''), Commission, and Leah Mesfin, Special Counsel,
Division, Commission, from Cynthia Hoekstra, Vice President, Phlx,
on June 24, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to adopt a $0.10 per contract
side license fee on ``firm-related'' comparison and transaction charges
for the Nasdaq Index Products.\8\ This license fee will be imposed only
after the Exchange's $60,000 firm-related equity option and index
option comparison and transaction charge cap is reached.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, ``firm-related'' charges include equity option
firm/proprietary comparison charges, equity option firm/proprietary
transaction charges, equity option firm/proprietary facilitation
transaction charges, index option firm (proprietary and customer
executions) comparison charges, index option firm/proprietary
transaction charges, and index option firm/proprietary facilitation
transaction charges (collectively the ``firm-related charges'').
    \9\ Currently, the Exchange imposes a per contract side license
fee for equity option and index option ``firm'' transactions on
certain licensed products (collectively ``licensed products'') after
the $60,000 cap per member organization on all ``firm-related''
equity option and index option comparison and transaction charges
combined is reached Therefore, when a member organization exceeds
the $60,000 cap (comprised of firm-related charges), the member
organization is charged $60,000, plus the applicable license fee per
contract side for any contracts in licensed products (if any) over
those that were included in reaching the $60,000 cap. Thus, such
firm-related charges in the aggregate for one billing month may not
exceed $60,000 per month per member organization. For a complete
list of the licensed products that are assessed a license fee per
contract side after the $60,000 cap is reached, see $60,000 ``Firm
Related'' Equity Option and Index Option Cap on the Exchange's fee
schedule.

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

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend its Summary of Equity
Option and RUT and RMN Charges to reflect that a $0.10 license fee on
the Nasdaq Index Products will be assessed in connection with the
Exchange's current cap on Registered Options Traders (``ROT'')
comparison charges and ROT and specialist transaction charges \10\ on
non-AUTOM delivered equity option contracts \11\ when an ROT or
specialist executes over 14,000 contracts calculated on a daily basis.
These terms apply only to transactions when an ROT or specialist is the
contra-party to a customer order.\12\ Therefore, after the 14,000 non-
AUTOM delivered contract level is reached in a specific option,
additional comparison and transaction charges are not assessed on
subsequent option contracts in excess of 14,000 that are executed on
that day in that specific option when the ROT or specialist is the
contra-party to a customer order. Even when the 14,000 cap is reached,
the license fee will be imposed on applicable ROTs and specialists for
equity option transactions on those licensed products that carry a
license fee.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange does not currently assess a comparison charge
on specialist transactions. Therefore, the cap applies to ROT
comparison and transaction charges combined and separately to
specialist transaction charges.
    \11\ For purposes of this fee, orders delivered via the Floor
Broker Management System are deemed to be non-AUTOM delivered
orders. See Phlx Rule 1063.
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54659 (October 27,
2006), 71 FR 64603 (November 2, 2006) (SR-Phlx-2006-67) (capping ROT
comparison charges and ROT and specialist transaction charges when
certain requirements are met).
    \13\ For a complete list of the licensed products that are
currently assessed a license fee per contract side after the 14,000
equity option contract is reached, see $60,000 ``Firm Related''
Equity Option and Index Option Cap on the Exchange's fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal is schedule to become effective for transactions
settling on or after June 16, 2008.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
principal office, on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.phlx.com/
regulatory/reg_rulefilings.aspx, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to assess equity option charges,
including payment for order flow charges, on the Nasdaq Index Products
that are competitive with charges assessed on these same products by
other exchanges.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57052
(December 27, 2007), 73 FR 523 (January 3, 2008) (SR-Amex-2007-140)
(assessing license fee of $0.16 per contract side for NDX and MNX
options); 51351 (March 9, 2005), 70 FR 12917 (March 16, 2005)
(relating to transaction fees and license fees for the Nasdaq Index
Products); 57128 (January 10, 2008), 73 FR 2969 (January 16, 2008)
(SR-ISE-2008-02) (assessing license fee of $0.16 per contract for
trading in options on NDX and MNX); 52983 (December 20, 2005), 70 FR
76475 (December 27, 2005) (SR-ISE-2005-047) (adopting a flat
execution fee for public customer orders in ``Premium Products'');
52493 (September 22, 2005), 70 FR 56941 (September 29, 2005) (SR-
Amex-2005-087) (certain transaction fees applicable to the Nasdaq
Index Products); and 55193 (January 30, 2007), 72 FR 5476 (February
6, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-111) (amending certain public customer fees
for other indexes, ETFs and HOLDRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of assessing the Nasdaq Index Products a license fee of
$0.10 per contract side after reaching the $60,000 cap and the 14,000
cap as described herein is to help defray licensing costs associated
with the trading of these products, while still capping member
organizations' fees enough to attract volume from other exchanges.\15\
The caps operate this way in order to offer an incentive for additional
volume without leaving the Exchange with significant out-of-pocket
costs. This proposal is scheduled to become effective for transactions
settling on or after June 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \16\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members, as all the applicable equity
option charges will be assessed on the Nasdaq Index Products.
Additionally, assessing customer transaction and license fees on the
Nasdaq Index Products, as described herein, should help the Exchange
remain competitive by attracting additional order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing rule change is establishing or changing a
due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \18\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of
such proposed rule change the Commission may summarily abrogate such
rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2008-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-46. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Phlx-2008-46 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-15103 Filed 7-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11701-11703]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0770; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-057-AD;
Amendment 39-17771; AD 2014-04-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Eurocopter France) (Airbus Helicopters)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Helicopters Model EC225LP helicopters. This AD adds a new
operating limitation that requires increasing the minimum density
altitude flight limitation for helicopters without certain Eurocopter
modifications installed. This AD is prompted by a report that flights
below a certain density altitude create oscillations in the main rotor
which can transfer dynamic loads to the structure, the main gearbox
(MGB), and the main servo-control inputs, which could result in
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective April 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, 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: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On September 6, 2013, at 78 FR 54792, 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 Eurocopter
France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC225LP helicopters, except those
with certain modifications (MODs) installed. The NPRM proposed to
require, within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS), amending the Rotorcraft
Flight Manual (RFM) to limit minimum flight altitude to -2,000 feet
density altitude. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent
oscillations in the main rotor that can transfer dynamic loads to the
structure, the MGB, and the main servo-control inputs, which could
result in subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2008-0007R3, dated May 12, 2010,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union. EASA issued AD No. 2008-0007R3 to correct an unsafe
condition for Model EC 225 LP helicopters that are ``not equipped of
all three modifications MOD 0726582, MOD 0726477, and MOD 0726583, or,
if not equipped of MOD 0726592, or, if equipped with all three
modifications MOD 0726606, MOD 0726610, MOD 0726611 and missing
accomplishment

of MOD 0726632.'' EASA advises that the main rotor control linkage has
a coupling between the MGB motion and the main servo-control inputs.
According to EASA, in certain flight conditions with increased air
density, this design generates ``spurious'' 14 Hertz control inputs in
the main rotor, which, in return, transfer dynamic loads to the
structure. These return dynamic loads give feedback to the MGB motion,
inducing a continuous vibration phenomenon. EASA states that flight
tests have demonstrated that below certain density altitudes, the
occurrence of the vibration phenomenon is significantly increased or
even diverges, which could lead to the loss of control of the
helicopter. EASA advises that Eurocopter has continued to develop MODs
for correcting the vibrations below certain density altitudes, and
therefore, helicopters with certain MODs installed are exempt from the
applicability of EASA AD No. 2008-0007R3.
    To correct this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD No. 2008-0007R3,
which requires revising the RFM to prohibit operation below -2,000 feet
density altitude for helicopters without certain modifications
installed.
    Since we issued the NPRM, Eurocopter France has changed its name to
Airbus Helicopters. This AD reflects that change and updates the
contact information to obtain service information.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 54792,
September 6, 2013).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, 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, except for the name change
from Eurocopter France to Airbus Helicopters. This change is consistent
with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (78 FR 54792, September 6,
2013) and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD specifies a compliance time of 30 days, while this AD
requires compliance within 50 hours TIS.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 04A001,
Revision 3, dated May 6, 2010, which specifies inserting RFM revision
``Normal Revision RN11 (10-04) or later, associated with conditional
revision RCe (10-04) or later'' into the RFM for helicopters equipped
with screen air intakes and inserting ``Normal Revision RN21 (10-05) or
later, associated with conditional revision RCe (10-04) or later'' into
the RFM for helicopters equipped with multi-purpose air intakes. Both
RFM revisions limit the minimum altitude for flight to -2,000 feet
density altitude.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect three helicopters of U.S.
Registry and that the costs to comply with this AD by revising the RFM
are negligible.

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):

2014-04-12 Airbus Helicopters (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Eurocopter France): Amendment 39-17771; Docket No. FAA-2013-0770;
Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-057-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model EC225LP helicopters, certificated in
any category, except helicopters with the following modifications
(MOD) installed:
    (1) MOD 0726582, MOD 0726477, and MOD 0726583;
    (2) MOD 0726592; or
    (3) MOD 0726632.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as oscillations in the main
rotor which can transfer dynamic loads to the structure, the main
gearbox (MGB), and the main servo-control inputs, which could result
in subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 7, 2014.

(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 Action

    Within 50 hours time-in-service, revise the Operating
Limitations section of the Eurocopter EC225LP Rotorcraft Flight
Manual (RFM) by inserting a copy of this AD into Section 2.3 of the
RFM, or by making pen and ink changes as follows. Under paragraph 1,
Altitude Limits, add the phrase:
    The minimum altitude is limited to -2,000 feet density altitude.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; 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

    (1) Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 04A001,
Revision 3, dated May 4, 2010, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus
Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2008-0007R3, dated May 12, 2010. You may
view the EASA AD in the AD docket on the Internet at http:/
www.regulations.gov.

 (h) Subject.

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2200: Auto Flight
System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 19, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04314 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 56809]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2459-263]

Lake Lynn Generation, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Application: Notice of Intent to File License
Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2459-263.
    c. Date filed: August 29, 2019.
    d. Submitted by: Lake Lynn Generation, LLC (Lake Lynn).
    e. Name of Project: Lake Lynn Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Located on the Cheat River near the City of
Morgantown, West Virginia, in Monongalia County, West Virginia and
Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The project does not occupy any federal
land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mrs. Jody Smet, Lake Lynn
Generation, LLC, 2 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1330, Bethesda, MD
20814; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Andy Bernick at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Lake Lynn filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on August 29, 2019. Lake Lynn provided public notice of its
request on August 29, 2019. In a letter dated October 17, 2019, the
Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Lake Lynn's
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part
402. We are also initiating consultation with the West Virginia State
Historic Preservation Officer and the Pennsylvania State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Lake Lynn as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Lake Lynn filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 2459. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by November 30,
2022.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: October 17, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23097 Filed 10-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 163)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42807-42810]
[DOCID:fr25au09-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0718; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-025-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 747 airplanes. This proposed AD would require one-time
detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks in the
wing and horizontal stabilizer side-of-body joints and the fuselage
skin circumferential splices, and repair if necessary. This proposed AD
would also require, for certain airplanes, repetitive detailed
inspections for cracks of the fuselage skin circumferential splices,
and repair if necessary. This proposed AD results from Boeing analysis
indicating that the wing and horizontal stabilizer side-of-body joints,
and the fuselage skin circumferential splices are susceptible to
fatigue cracking due to high cyclic loads on the airplane. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking at multiple
adjacent locations in the subject areas, which could connect to form
large cracks and result in reduced structural integrity leading to
rapid decompression and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 2009.

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe

Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0718;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-025-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Boeing analysis indicates that the wing and horizontal stabilizer
side-of-body joints and the fuselage skin circumferential splices on
Model 747 airplanes are susceptible to fatigue cracking due to high
cyclic loads on the airplane. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in reduced structural integrity leading to rapid decompression
and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

Related Rulemaking

    On March 24, 2004, we issued AD 2004-07-22, amendment 39-13566 (69
FR 18250, April 7, 2004), for all Boeing Model 747 series airplanes. (A
correction of AD AD 2004-07-22 was issued on December 26, 2007 (73 FR
1052, January 7, 2008), to clarify the AD applicability.) That AD
supersedes two existing ADs which require that the maintenance
inspection program be revised to include inspections that will give no
less than the required damage tolerance rating for each structural
significant item, and repair of cracked structure. That AD also
requires additional and expanded inspections, and repair of cracked
structure. That AD resulted from a structural re-evaluation that
identified additional structural elements where, if damage were to
occur, supplemental inspections may be required for timely detection of
fatigue cracking. We issued that AD to ensure the continued structural
integrity of the entire fleet of Model 747 series airplanes.
    On January 29, 2004, we issued AD 2004-03-09, amendment 39-13453
(69 FR 6542, February 11, 2004), for all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200F, 747-200C, 747-300, 747SR, and
747SP series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive inspections for
discrepancies of the structure near and common to the upper chord and
splice fittings of the rear spar of the wing, and repair if necessary.
That AD also provides for an optional modification that, if
accomplished, terminates the repetitive inspection requirement, but
would necessitate eventual post-modification inspections. We issued
that AD to find and fix fatigue cracking of structure near and common
to the upper chord and splice fittings of the rear spar of the wing,
which could result in loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated
October 30, 2008. The service bulletin describes procedures for one-
time detailed and open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracks in the wing side-of-body (SOB) joint upper and
lower surfaces; one-time detailed and open-hole HFEC inspections for
cracks in the horizontal stabilizer SOB joint; one-time surface and
open-hole HFEC inspections for cracks of the fuselage skin
circumferential splices; as applicable; and repair if necessary. The
service bulletin also describes procedures, for certain airplanes, for
repetitive detailed inspections for cracks of the fuselage skin
circumferential splices. The service bulletin also allows surface HFEC
inspections as an option for doing certain open-hole HFEC inspections
for cracks in the horizontal stabilizer SOB joint surfaces. For
airplanes on which any crack is found during any inspection, the
procedures include reporting the crack finding to Boeing and contacting
Boeing for repair data, and repairing before further flight.
    The compliance times for the inspections are as follows:
     For Groups 1 through 5 airplanes, for the detailed
inspection of the fuselage skin circumferential splices: Before the
accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles, or within 1 year after the
date on the service bulletin, whichever occurs later. For airplanes on
which no crack is found, the inspection is repeated within 6,000 flight
cycles after the initial inspection, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 6,000 flight cycles.
     For Groups 1 through 3 airplanes, for the detailed and
open-hole HFEC inspections of the wing SOB joint upper and lower
surfaces; detailed and open-hole HFEC inspections of the horizontal
stabilizer SOB joint; and surface and open-hole HFEC inspections of the
fuselage skin circumferential splices are to be done at the later of
the following times: Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight
cycles or 115,000 total flight hours (whichever occurs first), or
within 1 year after the date on the service bulletin. The service
bulletin also specifies that operators do not accomplish the
inspections until the airplane has accumulated at least either 28,500
total flight cycles or 110,000 total flight hours.
     For Groups 4 through 6 airplanes for the detailed and
open-hole HFEC inspections of the wing SOB joint upper and lower
surfaces; detailed and open-hole HFEC inspections of the horizontal
stabilizer SOB joint; and surface and open-hole HFEC inspections of the
fuselage skin circumferential splices are to be done at the later of
the following times: Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight
cycles or 135,000 total flight hours (whichever occurs first), or
within 1 year after the date on the service bulletin. The service
bulletin also specifies that operators should not accomplish the
inspections until the airplane has accumulated at least either 28,500
total flight cycles or 130,000 total flight hours.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization

Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is
later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 165 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 2,604 work-hours per
product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80
per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $34,372,800, or $208,320 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2009-0718; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-
025-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 9, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51: Standard
practices/structures.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a Boeing analysis indicating that the
wing and horizontal stabilizer side-of-body joints, and the fuselage
skin circumferential splices are susceptible to fatigue cracking due
to high cyclic loads on the airplane. The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking at multiple adjacent locations in the subject areas, which
could connect to form large cracks and result in reduced structural
integrity leading to rapid decompression and consequent loss of
control of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Inspections and Repair if Necessary

    (g) Except as provided by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: At
the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated October 30, 2008, do one-time
inspections for cracks in the wing and horizontal stabilizer side-
of-body joints, and the fuselage skin circumferential splices; do
detailed inspections, as applicable, for cracks of the fuselage skin
circumferential splices; and do all applicable repairs before
further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated October 30,
2008, except as provided by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD. As
applicable, repeat the detailed inspection for cracks of the
fuselage skin circumferential splices, at the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
51A2060, dated October 30, 2008.

Exceptions to Compliance Times

    (h) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated
October 30, 2008, specifies a compliance time after ``* * * the date
on this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (i) Where Note (a) of Table 2 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated October 30, 2008, specifies that
if a certain modification was done then certain inspections may be
deferred ``until the post modification inspection period as given in
Service Bulletin 747-57A2314,'' this AD allows, for airplanes on
which the modification specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
57A2314 has been done, deferring the inspections specified in Part 2
of paragraph 3.B., of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated October 30, 2008, until the applicable
post-modification inspection intervals required by paragraph (e) of
AD 2004-03-09, amendment 39-13453.

Exception to Part 4 Actions

    (j) For Group 6 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated October 30, 2008: Do the inspections
specified in Part 4 of paragraph 3.B. of the Work Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated October 30, 2008,
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD.

Exception to Corrective Actions

    (k) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this
AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-51A2060, dated October 30,
2008, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before
further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

Reporting Requirement

    (l) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (l)(1) or
(l)(2) of this AD, submit a report of positive and negative findings
of cracks found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD to Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. Alternatively, operators may submit reports
to their Boeing field service representatives. The report must
contain, as a minimum, the following information: airplane serial
number, flight cycles at time of discovery, location(s) and extent
of positive crack findings. Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection
requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120-0056.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or before the effective date
of this AD: Send the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.
    (2) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this
AD: Send the report within 30 days after the inspection is done.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Or, e-mail information
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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 principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-20382 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P