Memo to the Docket
Docket  -  EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0026

We had a meeting with PacifiCorp on October 31, 2013 with Cathy Woolhums, Bill Lawson, Chad Teply, and Mike Jenkins representing PacifiCorp.
Representing EPA were Carl Daly, Laurel Dygowski, Aaron Worstell, Monica Morales, Steve Odendahl and Paul Logan.
The following are the questions EPA posed to PacifiCorp and a summary response.
We have reviewed PacifiCorp's August 26, 2013 comments and have the following clarifying questions.
   1) For Naughton Unit 3, PacifiCorp has a comment on page 72 pertaining to the conversion of natural gas.  Does this comment indicate that PacifiCorp wants EPA to finalize as part of its FIP the requirement for PacifiCorp to convert the unit to natural gas with a NOx emission limit of 0.08 lb/MMBtu, which would be in lieu of finalizing our proposed approval of an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (which was based on SCR)?
   Answer: Yes.
   2) In addition, EPA would need to include emission limits for SO2 and PM in its FIP.  An emission limit for SO2 is required to show that the visibility benefits of natural gas conversion are superior to those from SCR.  A PM emission limit is required under BART.  If EPA included a PM emission limit of 0.008 (30-day rolling average) (this limit is derived from the State's permit) in its FIP for Naughton Unit 3, and if EPA included an emission limit of 0.0006 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) (this limit is derived from the State's permit) for SO2 in its FIP, would PacifiCorp have an objection to either limit?
   Answer: PacifiCorp would not object to either limit being included.
   3) For Naughton Unit 1 and 2 and Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp indicates in its comments on page 37, that it plans on shutting down the units in 2029 and 2027, respectively.  Should we interpret PacifiCorp's comment to say that it is requesting that EPA include these shut-down dates as federally enforceable requirements in our FIP in lieu of a potential FIP requirement for SCR?
   Answer: Yes, PacifiCorp would want those dates included in lieu of a requirement for SCR.
   4) Would PacifiCorp still plan on shutting down Naughton Units 1 and 2 in 2029 and Dave Johnston Unit 3 in 2027 if EPA did not propose to require SCR on these units for BART?
   Answer:  It would depend on PacifiCorp's economic analysis and EPA's final action.
   5) Also for Naughton Unit 1 and 2 and Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp mentions in its comments on page 2 that they would either shut-down these units or convert them to natural gas. Can you please clarify this statement?
   Answer:  It would depend on PacifiCorp's economic analysis and EPA's final action.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21655-21658]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0232; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-100-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; the Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain the Boeing Company Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40,
and DC-9-50 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an
evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the
bulkhead dome tees, which connect the bulkhead web to the fuselage, are
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections of the improved ventral aft pressure
bulkhead tees and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the bulkhead dome tees, which
could result in reduced structural integrity and rapid decompression of
the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above 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,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0232; 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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5348; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0232;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-100-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

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as WFD.
As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if
the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the

timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while
providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to
their airplanes.
    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that
the improved (shot-peened) ventral aft pressure bulkhead dome tees,
which connect the bulkhead web to the fuselage, are subject to WFD. No
new improved (shot-peened) tees have been found cracked to date, but it
has been determined that these improved tees could crack before the
airplane's limit of validity is reached. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in reduced structural integrity and rapid
decompression of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232,
Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2014-0232.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information identified previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated
April 28, 1995, did not specify compliance times for inspections of the
new improved (shot-peened) tees. We have determined that the compliance
time specified in this proposed AD adequately addresses the unsafe
condition. This difference has been coordinated with The Boeing
Company.
    Although McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision
2, dated April 28, 1995, describes inspection procedures for the
original design tees, the inspection procedures also apply to the
improved (shot-peened) tees specified in this AD.
    Although McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision
2, dated April 28, 1995, notes that replacing all six aft pressure
bulkhead tee sections with new improved tee sections terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements, this proposed AD does not allow
that terminating action because the new improved tee could crack before
the airplane's limit of validity is reached.
    Although Table 1 of Figure 4, and paragraph 3, ``Material
Information,'' of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232,
Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995, specify tee part numbers of
SR09530056-3, SR09530056-5, SR09530056-6, SR09530056-7, SR09530056-8,
SR09530056-9, 5910163-387, 5910163-389, 5910163-391, 5910163-392,
5910163-393, or 5910163-394, the complete lists of part numbers are
listed in paragraphs (h) and (k) of this proposed AD.
    These differences have been coordinated with The Boeing Company.

Related Rulemaking

    AD 96-16-04, Amendment 39-9704 (61 FR 39860, July 31, 1996)
requires repetitive inspections of the original tee in accordance with
McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated
April 28, 1995, whether or not the original tee was replaced. AD 96-16-
04 did not address WFD and, therefore, allowed replacement of the tee
with a new improved tee as a terminating action for repetitive
inspections.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the replacement specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is replaced before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to
WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  Up to 148                        $0  Up to $12,580 per    Up to $603,840 per
                                    work[dash]hours x                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    $85 per hour =
                                    $12,580 per
                                    inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................................  4,000 work-hours x $85 per hour         $26,000         $366,000
                                                = $340,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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

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):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0232; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-100-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 2, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects certain requirements of AD 96-16-04, Amendment
39-9704 (61 FR 39860, July 31, 1996).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12,
DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes; Model DC-9-21
airplanes; Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-
33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B) airplanes; Model
DC-9-41 airplanes; and Model DC-9-51 airplanes; certificated in any
category; equipped with a ventral aft pressure bulkhead.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the improved (shot-peened) ventral aft
pressure bulkhead dome tees, which connect the bulkhead web to the
fuselage, are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the
improved (shot-peened) ventral aft pressure bulkhead dome tees
connecting the bulkhead web to the fuselage, which could result in
reduced structural integrity and rapid decompression of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For the purposes of this AD, the term ``original tee
section'' refers to the original (non-peened) ventral aft pressure
bulkhead web to fuselage skin attach tee sections.
    (2) For the purposes of this AD, the term ``improved tee
section'' refers to improved (shot peened) ventral aft pressure
bulkhead web to fuselage skin attach tee sections.

(h) Inspections

    For airplanes on which an improved tee section having P/N
5910130-389, 5910130-391, 5910130-392, 5910130-393, 5910130-394,
5910130-387, SR09530001-19, SR09530001-21, SR09530001-22,
SR09530001-23, SR09530001-24, SR09530001-25, SR09530001-35,
SR09530001-29, SR09530001-30, SR09530001-31, SR09530001-32,
SR09530001-33, SR09530056-3, SR09530056-5, SR09530056-6, SR09530056-
7, SR09530056-8, SR09530056-9, SR09530056-19, SR09530056-21,
SR09530056-22, SR09530056-23, SR09530056-24, or SR09530056-25, is
installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this AD, do general visual and low frequency eddy current
inspections (Option I), or high and low frequency eddy current
inspections (Option II), for cracking of the improved tee sections,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated April 28,
1995.

(i) Compliance Times

    (1) For Option I and Option II inspections specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD: If the time of installation of an improved
tee section having a part number listed in paragraph (h) of this AD,
is known, do the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of
this AD within 70,000 flight cycles after installation of the
improved tee section, or within 1,500 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For Option I and Option II inspections specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD: If the time of installation of an improved
tee section having a part number listed in paragraph (h) of this AD,
is not known, do the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of
this AD before the accumulation of 105,000 total flight cycles on
the airplane or within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(j) Repetitive Inspections

    If no cracking is found during the inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraph
(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995.
    (1) For Option I: If Option I was used for the inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repeat the inspections
specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(1)(iii) of
this AD at the intervals specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i),
(j)(1)(ii), and (j)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Repeat the low frequency eddy current inspection for
cracking of side areas above the floor between longerons L7 and L17
on the fuselage, at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles.
    (ii) Repeat the general visual inspection for cracking of the
top and lower areas from longeron L7 left side to longeron L7 right
side, and lower fuselage longeron L17 to longeron L20 on the left
and right sides, at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles.
    (iii) Repeat the general visual inspection for cracking of the
bottom areas from longeron L20 left side to longeron L20 right side,
at intervals not to exceed 3,500 flight cycles.
    (2) For Option II: If Option II was used for the inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, repeat the high and low
frequency eddy current inspection for cracking around the entire
periphery of the fuselage on the forward side of the bulkhead, at
intervals not to exceed 2,500 flight cycles.

(k) Corrective Actions and Post-Replacement Inspections

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) or (j) of this AD: Before further pressurized flight,
replace each cracked tee section with an airworthy tee section
having a part number listed in paragraph (h) of this AD, or with an
original tee section having P/N 5910130-47, 5910130-51, 5910130-53,
5910130-54, 5910130-55, or 5910130-56, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995.

    (1) If the tee section is replaced with an improved tee section
listed in paragraph (h) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of
70,000 flight cycles after installation, inspect the tee section in
accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD and do all applicable
corrective actions and repetitive inspections in accordance with and
at the times specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.
    (2) If the tee section is replaced with an original tee section
listed in paragraph (k) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of
35,000 flight cycles after installation, inspect the tee section in
accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD and do all applicable
corrective actions and repetitive inspections in accordance with and
at the times specified in paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and 14 CFR
25.571, Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to
this AD.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 7, 2014.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-08730 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="11/06/2008 04:07:33 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 61425]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-108, OMB Control No. 3235-0120]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Form 18-K

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 18-K (17 CFR 249.318) is an annual report form used by foreign
governments or political subdivisions of foreign governments with
securities listed on a United States exchange. The information to be
collected is intended to ensure the adequacy and public availability of
information available to investors. The information provided is
mandatory. Form 18-K is a public document. We estimate that Form 18-K
takes approximately 8 hours to prepare and is filed by approximately 38
respondents for a total annual reporting burden of 304 hours (8 hours
per response x 38 responses).
    An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by November 10, 2022 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii)
David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 4, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21960 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74287-74289]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-8464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-050-AD;
Amendment 39-18692; AD 2016-22-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted
by a revision by the manufacturer to the Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMR) of the Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), in the
Maintenance Requirement Manual (MRM), that introduces a new CMR task
that requires repetitive operational checks of the propeller overspeed
governor. This AD requires revising the airplane maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a new CMR task. We
are issuing this AD to prevent dormant failure of the propeller
overspeed governor, which may lead to a loss of propeller overspeed
protection and result in high propeller drag in flight.

DATES: This AD is effective November 30, 2016.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8464; 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 street address for the Docket Office (telephone:
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morton Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc. Model
DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on January 19, 2016 (81 FR 2785) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted
by a revision by the manufacturer to the CMR of the ALI, in the MRM,
that introduces a new CMR task that requires repetitive operational
checks of the propeller overspeed governor. The NPRM proposed to
require revising the airplane maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate a new CMR task. We are issuing this AD to
prevent dormant failure of the propeller overspeed governor, which may
lead to a loss of propeller overspeed protection and result in high
propeller drag in flight.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2014-43, dated December
18, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    Bombardier Inc. has revised the Maintenance Requirement Manual
PSM-1-84-7, Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), Part 2, Section 1,
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR). This revision
introduces a new CMR task, task number 612000-109, for the
Operational Check of the Propeller Overspeed Governor to be
performed every 200 flight hours.
    This new task was introduced to minimize the probability of
dormant failure of the propeller overspeed governor, which may lead
to a loss of propeller overspeed protection and result in high
propeller drag in-flight.
    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the incorporation of a
new CMR task for the Propeller Overspeed Governor.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8464.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response.

Request To Specify Temporary Revision (TR) as Method of Compliance

    Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed
AD, which would require revising the maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate an operational check of the propeller
overspeed governor using a method approved by the Manager, New York
ACO, ANE-170, FAA. Horizon Air requested that we instead allow an
operational check of the propeller overspeed governor using Bombardier
``Temporary Revision (TR) ALI-129 of the DHC-8 Series 400 Maintenance
Requirements Manual, PSM-1-84-7.'' Horizon stated that the revised AD
would then be similar to previous ADs that have mandated incorporation
of maintenance program tasks. Horizon Air also requested that we add a
note that allows the incorporation of the TR by the general revisions
of the maintenance requirements manual (MRM).
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. Because of certain
formatting anomalies in the document, we cannot incorporate it by
reference in this AD, so this AD requires revising the maintenance or
inspection program to incorporate an operational check, using a method
approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA. We referred to CMR
task number 612000-109 of the MRM in note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD
to inform operators that the TR to the MRM is an additional source of
guidance for the operational check of the propeller overspeed governor.
We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $6,970, or $85 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 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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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):

2016-22-03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18692; Docket No. FAA-
2015-8464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-050-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 30, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401,
and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 61, Propellers/
propulsors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a revision by the manufacturer to the
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR) of the Airworthiness
Limitation Items (ALI), in the Maintenance Requirement Manual (MRM),
that introduces a new CMR task that requires repetitive operational
checks of the propeller overspeed governor. We are issuing this AD
to prevent dormant failure of the propeller overspeed governor,
which may lead to a loss of propeller overspeed protection and
result in high propeller drag in flight.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Program or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance program or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate an operational check of the propeller overspeed
governor, CMR task number 612000-109, to be performed every 200
flight hours, using a method approved by the Manager, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: CMR task number 612000-109,
Operational Check of the Propeller Overspeed Governor, in Bombardier
Q400 Dash 8 Temporary Revision (TR) ALI-129, dated September 3,
2013, is an additional source of guidance for the operational check
of the propeller overspeed governor specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly

to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2014-43, dated December 18, 2014, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2015-8464.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series
Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K
1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-25747 Filed 10-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P