[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27970-27972]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9502; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-128-AD;
Amendment 39-18929; AD 2017-12-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH)
indicating that certain areas of the frame webs are subject to
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires inspections of the
frame webs for any crack of any open coordinating holes, tooling holes,
and insulation blanket attachment holes; repair if necessary; and
modification of the frame webs at all open hole locations, which would
terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 25, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 25,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 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
425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9502.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9502; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) 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: Muoi Vuong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5205; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 certain The Boeing Company
Model 757-200 and -200PF series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92742) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that certain
areas of the frame webs are subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to
require high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the frame
webs for any crack in any open coordinating holes, tooling holes, and
insulation blanket attachment holes; repair if necessary; and
modification of the frame webs at all open hole locations, which would
terminate the repetitive inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent
fatigue cracking that could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received. Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, FedEx, and United Airlines supported the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified
in the proposed AD.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph
(c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a
``change in product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval
request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
39.17.

Additional Change to Proposed AD

    We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to specify all compliance
times, rather than referring to the service information because a
certain compliance time specified in the service information is
relative to the issue date of the service information. For this AD,
that compliance time is relative to the effective date of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously, and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June
22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for performing
repetitive HFEC inspections of the frame webs for any crack of any open
coordinating holes, tooling holes, and insulation blanket attachment
holes; and modifying the frame webs between stringers S-20 and S-25.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 74 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC inspection..................  68 work-hours x $85            $0  $5,780 per            $427,720 per
                                    per hour = $5,780                  inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
Modification.....................  1 work-hour x $85           \1\ 0  85..................  85.
                                    per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Parts supplied by the operator.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2017-12-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18929; Docket No. FAA-
2016-9502; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-128-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 25, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -
200PF series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June 22, 2016.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01518SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/38B606833BBD98B386257FAA00602538?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01518se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(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 frame webs between stringers S-20
and S-25 on the left side and right side, from station (STA) 440 to
STA 820 and from STA 1300 to STA 1701, are subject to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue
cracking that could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspections of the
Frame Webs

    Before the accumulation of 28,000 total flight cycles, or within
3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, do an HFEC inspection of the frame webs for any crack
in any open coordinating holes, tooling holes, and insulation
blanket attachment holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated
June 22, 2016. If any cracking is found, repair before further
flight

using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD. Repeat the inspection at intervals not
to exceed 12,000 flight cycles.

(h) Modification of the Frame Webs

    Before the accumulation of 59,000 total flight cycles, modify
the frame webs at all open hole locations, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0103, dated June 22, 2016. Accomplishment of this modification
terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g)
of this AD at the modified locations only.

(i) 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 (j) 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, modification, or alteration 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. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (g) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and
(i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Muoi Vuong,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5205; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0103, dated June 22,
2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this 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
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 7, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12397 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11399-11401]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0104; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-2]

Proposed Amendment to and Establishment of Restricted Areas,
Warren Grove; NJ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish two new restricted areas at
the Warren Grove Range, NJ, in order to raise the maximum altitude of
the range from the current 14,000 feet mean sea level (MSL), up to
flight level (FL) 230; and to expand the lateral dimensions of the
range airspace. In addition, the using agency for all Warren Grove
restricted areas would be updated to reflect the current organization
tasked with that responsibility. The New Jersey Air National Guard
requested that the FAA take this action due to the increased need for
aircrew training in high-altitude weapons delivery tactics.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-
0104 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-2, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments on environmental and land use aspects to
should be directed to: Mr. Harry Knudsen, Chief, Environmental
Planning, National Guard Bureau, ANG/CEVP, 3500 Fetchet Avenue, Andrews
AFB, MD 20762; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0104 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-2) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0104 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-2.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person at the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    Military use of the airspace near Warren Grove, Ocean County, NJ,
can be traced back to World War II. Today, the Warren Grove Range
consists of five restricted areas designated R-5002A, B, C, D and E.
The range is used for a wide variety of military air and ground
activities; including, but not limited to, air-to-surface weapons
delivery training, laser systems, night vision goggle training, cargo
air drops, parachute drops of personnel, and joint air and ground
forces exercises. Current real-world combat requirements are driving a
need for increased aircrew training in high altitude weapons delivery
tactics. This training requires higher altitudes, along with increased
lateral space in the high and medium altitude regimes. With its maximum
altitude of 14,000 feet MSL, and lateral dimensions of roughly 11
nautical miles (NM) by 8 NM, the existing Warren Grove Range does not
have enough space to contain this training.

Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to establish
two new restricted areas (designated R-5002F and R-5002G) at the Warren
Grove Range, NJ. This action would raise the restricted area ceiling
from 14,000 feet MSL to FL 230 and would expand lateral limits of
restricted airspace at the range. R-5002F would overlie the existing R-
5002A, and R-5002E, and part of R-5002B, and would extend from 14,000
feet MSL up to, but not including, FL 200. A second proposed restricted
area, R-5002G, would extend from FL 200 up to FL 230. R-5002G would
overlie the proposed R-5002F; and, to provide the required expanded
lateral space between FL 200 and FL 230, the boundaries of R-5002G
would extend approximately 15 NM to the northeast, and 8 NM to the
east, of the current range boundaries.
    It should be noted that, since the floor of R-5002G is at FL 200,
it would lie above the VOR Federal airway structure and therefore would
have no impact on the airways in the vicinity. Also, there are no jet
routes that would be affected by this proposal.
    In addition to the proposed establishment of R-5002F and R-5002G,
the following minor changes to the descriptions of the existing Warren
Grove restricted areas would be made. The using agency for the five
existing areas would be changed from the ``108th Air Refueling Wing,
McGuire AFB, NJ,'' to the ``177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City, NJ.''
This change is needed to reflect current organizational
responsibilities. The new using agency would also apply to the proposed
R-5002F and R-5002G. A minor wording change would be made to the
designated altitude ceiling of restricted areas R-5002A, B and E. The
current wording ``to 14,000 feet MSL'' would be changed to read ``to
but not including 14,000 feet MSL.'' This change is needed to avoid
overlap with the 14,000 feet MSL floor of the new area R-5002F, which
would

overlie R-5002A, B and E. The boundaries and times of use of R-5002A,
B, C, D and E would not be changed by this proposal. The designated
altitudes for R-5002C and D would remain as currently published.
    Use of the proposed R-5002F and G would be coordinated on a real
time basis. The two areas would only be activated with concurrent
release by New York Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and
Washington ARTCC. To minimize potential impact to IFR traffic flows,
the FAA will only authorize activation of the proposed areas when New
York and Washington ARTCCs determine there would be minimal to no
impact on IFR traffic operating in the affected area. In addition, the
FAA would be able to recall the proposed airspace, if needed, on five
minutes notice. A Letter of Agreement between New York ARTCC,
Washington ARTCC and the using agency would define the roles,
responsibilities and procedures for the activation of R-5002F and G.
Pilots seeking information about the activity status of R-5002 should
contact New York ARTCC on the frequency listed in the ``Special Use
Airspace'' panel of the Washington Sectional Aeronautical Chart. New
York ARTCC will continue to provide VFR traffic advisories, as
prescribed in current FAA directives, to those aircraft requesting
them.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would restructure the restricted airspace at the Warren Grove
Range, NJ, to enhance safety and accommodate essential military
training.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.50  [Amended]

    2. Sec.  73.50 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

1. R-5002A Warren Grove, NJ [Amended]

    By removing the current designated altitudes and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Designated altitudes. Surface to, but not including, 14,000 feet
MSL.
    Using agency. New Jersey ANG, 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City,
NJ.
* * * * *

2. R-5002B Warren Grove, NJ [Amended]

    By removing the current designated altitudes and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Designated altitudes. 1,000 feet MSL to, but not including,
14,000 feet MSL.
    Using agency. New Jersey ANG, 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City,
NJ
* * * * *

3. R-5002C Warren Grove, NJ [Amended]

    By removing the current using agency and substituting the
following:
    Using agency. New Jersey ANG, 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City,
NJ.
* * * * *

4. R-5002D Warren Grove, NJ [Amended]

    By removing the current using agency and substituting the
following:
    Using agency. New Jersey ANG, 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City,
NJ.
* * * * *

5. R-5002E Warren Grove, NJ [Amended]

    By removing the current designated altitudes and using agency
and substituting the following:
    Designated altitudes. 3,500 feet MSL to, but not including,
14,000 feet MSL.
    Using agency. New Jersey ANG, 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City,
NJ.
* * * * *

6. R-5002F Warren Grove, NJ [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 39[deg]43'25'' N., long.
74[deg]17'36'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]40'10'' N., long. 74[deg]20'14''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]38'50'' N., long. 74[deg]21'19'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]38'25'' N., long. 74[deg]22'05'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]38'25''
N., long. 74[deg]24'19'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]38'30'' N., long.
74[deg]29'29'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]39'20'' N., long. 74[deg]29'59''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]44'50'' N., long. 74[deg]24'39'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]44'50'' N., long. 74[deg]19'19'' W.; to the point of
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, but not including, FL
200.
    Time of designation. Sunrise to sunset, other times as activated
by NOTAM issued at least 48 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, New York ARTCC.
    Using agency. New Jersey ANG, 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City,
NJ.
* * * * *

7. R-5002G Warren Grove, NJ [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 39[deg]49'02'' N., long.
74[deg]00'45'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]38'18'' N., long. 74[deg]12'34''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]38'25'' N., long. 74[deg]22'05'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]38'25'' N., long. 74[deg]24'19'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]38'30''
N., long. 74[deg]29'29'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]39[deg]20'' N., long.
74[deg]29'59'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]44'50'' N., long. 74[deg]24'39''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]49'02'' N., long. 74[deg]16'18'' W.; to point of
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. FL 200 to FL 230.
    Time of designation. Sunrise to sunset, other times as activated
by NOTAM issued at least 48 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, New York ARTCC.
    Using agency. New Jersey ANG, 177th Fighter Wing, Atlantic City,
NJ.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2011.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-4576 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4689-4692]
[DOCID:fr29ja10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 35, 131, 154, 157, 250, 281, 284, 300, 341, 344, 346,
347, 348, 375 and 385

[Docket No. RM01-5-000]

Electronic Tariff Filings

Issued January 21, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order establishing procedures relating to tariffs filed
electronically.

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

SUMMARY: The adoption of electronic tariff filing necessitates changes
in the Commission's processing of tariff filings. This order identifies
the ways in which such changes affect aspects of Commission procedures,
particularly the determination of statutory filings and statutory
action dates, as well as changes in docketing procedures.

DATES: Effective date: This order is effective January 29, 2010.
Applicability date: This order becomes applicable when tariff filings
are submitted in electronic format.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
H. Keith Pierce (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anthony Barracchini (IT Information), Office of the Executive Director,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Andre Goodson (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. In Order No. 714,\1\ the Commission adopted regulations
requiring that, starting April 1, 2010, all tariffs and tariff
revisions filed with the Commission must be filed electronically
according to a format developed through collaboration between
Commission staff and the wholesale electric and gas quadrants of the
North American Energy Standards Board, and representatives from the
Association of Oil Pipelines. The adoption of electronic tariff filing
provides the framework for a more efficient document processing system
as well as providing a user-friendly interface from which the
Commission, its staff, and the public may retrieve and review tariffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, 73 FR 57515 (Oct.
3, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs ] 31,276 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The adoption of electronic tariff filing necessitates changes in
the business practices used by the Commission to process tariff
filings. This order identifies ways in which such changes affect
aspects of Commission procedures, particularly the determination of
whether a filing is a statutory filing, and the statutory action date,
as well as changes in docketing procedures.

Statutory Filings

    3. As the Commission explained in Order No. 714, the electronic
format developed through the collaborative process relies upon the use
of metadata (or information) about the tariff filing, including such
data elements as the type of filing that is being made, the proposed
effective date of proposed tariff changes, and the version number of
the effective tariff.\2\ As the Commission explained, these data
elements ``are required to properly identify the nature of the tariff
filing, organize the tariff database, and maintain the proper
relationship of tariff provisions in relation to other provisions.''
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These data elements, or codes, are described in the
Implementation Guide for Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284,
300, and 341 Tariff Filing (Implementation Guide), found on the
Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff/
implementation-guide.pdf.
    \3\ Order No. 714 at P 23. See The National Center for State
Courts, Standards for Electronic Filing Processes (Technical and
Business Approaches), Standard 1.1F (2003) (concluding that the
responsibility for data entry needs to be assigned to the filer,
since it has the greatest familiarity with the data to be entered),
http://www.ncsconline.org/d_tech/standards/Documents/pdfdocs/
Recommended_%20Process_%20standards_02_26_03.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Commission will be using these data elements to establish
statutory filing and other procedural dates.\4\ The Commission will use
the ``Type of Filing'' code (filing--type) together with the ``Tariff
Record Proposed Effective Date'' (proposed--effective--date) to
establish whether a filing is statutory and the applicable statutory
timelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A statutory filing is a filing made pursuant to section 4 of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA), section 205 of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), or section 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) to revise
rates or terms and conditions of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. All filers making statutory filings must choose a statutory
filing type and include a proposed effective date to have their filings
treated as statutory filings upon which the Commission must act within
statutorily-established time frames. That is, the filing type selected
by the filer will determine the type of filing and whether the filing
is to be treated as a statutory filing. Any discrepancy between the
description of the filing in the transmittal letter (or other pleading)
and the Type of Filing code chosen will be resolved in favor of the
Type of Filing code.\5\ Because the Commission is using the electronic
metadata to establish statutory action dates throughout its electronic
systems, the primacy of the Type of Filing code is necessary to ensure
the integrity of Commission processes and to ensure Commission action
on such filings within the time period provided under the appropriate
statute.\6\ While Commission staff will try, where possible, to notify
a filer of discrepancies between its transmittal letter and the Type of
Filing code it selected, the Type of Filing code selected will govern
the appropriate filing type and thus whether and what actions dates may
be applicable.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, if the transmittal letter states that a
statutory FPA section 205 filing is contemplated, but the Type of
Filing code selected represents a compliance filing, the Commission
will treat the filing as a compliance filing, which is not subject
to action within the period prescribed by FPA section 205.
    \6\ The Type of Filing code will be used in all of the
Commission's electronic systems to establish the applicable
statutory action dates, and so, notwithstanding a filing party's
wish expressed in its transmittal letter or in other pleadings, the
Commission may not review a filing that is incorrectly coded within
the time period requested by a filing party in such pleadings.
    \7\ Commission staff's efforts in this regard are intended
simply as a voluntary and informal aid to filers, and any action or
failure on the part of Commission staff will not bind or otherwise
affect how the Commission processes such filings. See 18 CFR
388.104(a) (2009); accord, e.g., 18 CFR 154.8 (2009). It is, and
remains, the filer's responsibility to ensure that it is selecting
the appropriate Type of Filing code, as well as accurately providing
any other metadata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Similarly, the Commission will be using the Tariff Record
Proposed Effective Date code to establish the proposed effective date
for any statutory filing.\8\ As is current practice, the date
established by the Tariff Record Proposed Effective Date, if that date
is after the otherwise statutorily-established effective date, will
establish the date on which, by statute, a tariff filing would go into
effect by operation of law in the absence of Commission action.\9\ In a
tariff filing that contains different proposed effective dates for
different proposed tariff changes, the earliest proposed effective date
will establish the proposed effective date for determining the date on
which the filing would go into effect in the absence of Commission
action.\10\ While the Commission will continue its current practice of
considering requests in

transmittal letters or other pleadings for issuance of orders on an
expedited basis, statements in transmittal letters or other pleadings
will not establish statutory action dates for tariff filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In order to constitute a statutory tariff filing, the filer,
therefore, must both select a statutory Type of Filing code and
include a Tariff Record with a Tariff Record Proposed Effective
Date.
    \9\ For example, if the Tariff Record Proposed Effective Date is
after the otherwise applicable statutorily-established effective
date, the statutory period will be extended until the Tariff Record
Proposed Effective Date.
    \10\ As explained in the Implementation Guide, for statutory
filings with indeterminate effective dates, for example, where the
effective date is contingent on Commission approval, plant
construction, or the closing of a plant sale, filers must still
include a Tariff Record Proposed Effective Date, but should set that
date to 12/31/9998. Implementation Guide, at 10, http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff/implementation-guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Because of the importance of the Type of Filing code and the
Tariff Record Proposed Effective Date, these metadata will be included
in the electronic notices sent to the filers and posted on
eLibrary.\11\ Filers should check these sources carefully to verify
that their tariff filings and proposed effective dates are what they
intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An example of how eLibrary will display the metadata for an
electronic tariff filing is posted at http://www.ferc.gov/
EventCalendar/Files/20091119114331-
Example%20eTariff%20eLibrary%20Rendition.rtf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Filers also need to be careful when making combined filings,
i.e., filings whose different parts would, if filed individually, have
different Type of Filing codes.\12\ Each filing can have only one Type
of Filing code, and so the treatment of any combined filing will depend
on the particular Type of Filing code chosen.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission's regulations and policies already prohibit
combined filings in some situations. See 18 CFR 154.203 (2009)
(compliance filings cannot be combined with any other type of
filing); Calpine Eastern Corporation, 97 FERC ] 61,078, at 61,382
(2001) (cannot combine filings made in compliance with a prior
Commission order with new FPA section 205 filings).
    \13\ Instead of combining filings, filers can make separate
filings for each type of filing contemplated--each filing containing
the portions relevant to the specific filing type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docketing Procedures

    9. The Commission will use the metadata supplied with the tariff
filing to help speed up its docketing and notice process. As far as
possible, these data will permit docketing that closely parallels
current practice. However, some of the docket prefixes previously used
may not be assigned to electronic tariff filings and these filings will
be assigned only a single docket number rather than multiple docket
numbers as may have occurred in the past.
    10. Procedures for identifying root and subsequent subdockets \14\
will remain the same for the vast majority of compliance and other
filings. However, in a few cases, parties will experience differences,
particularly for compliance filings made in the context of complaint
cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission typically assigns a root docket number to an
initial filing and then adds subdockets to later filings in the same
proceeding. As an illustration, for Docket No. ER12-6789-000, the
root docket number is ``ER12-6789'' and the subdocket is ``000.''
When a subsequent compliance filing is made, the root docket is
retained and the subdocket will be incremented, usually by 1, so
that the new docket number will be ER12-6789-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Subdockets for compliance filings will be established based on
the metadata provided by the pipeline or utility making the filing.
Each pipeline or utility is required to identify every filing using a
discrete number, ``Filing Identifier'' (filing--id). When making
filings related to or associated with a prior filing (such as a
compliance filing), the pipeline or utility must include the Filing
Identifier of the prior filing that is associated with its current
filing. (The Filing Identifier of the initial filing will be included
as the ``Associated Filing Identifier'' (associated--filing--id) in the
subsequent filing). For example, if the pipeline or utility is making a
compliance filing, it will include as the Associated Filing Identifier
in the compliance filing, the Filing Identifier it assigned to the
initial tariff filing giving rise to the compliance filing. That
Associated Filing Identifier will permit the Commission to determine
the relevant root docket number assigned to the initial tariff filing,
so that a subdocket for the compliance filing can be assigned.
    12. However, in those circumstances in which the pipeline or
utility does not include (in a subsequent filing) the Filing Identifier
of its initial filing, the root docket number for the initial
proceeding will not be available. Accordingly, a new root docket number
will be assigned to the compliance filing. The practice of assigning a
new root docket parallels the Commission's typical practice with
respect to compliance filings in rulemaking proceedings, in which each
pipeline's or utility's individual filing to comply with the rule
typically receives a new root docket number.
    13. However, new root docket numbers may be assigned in situations
in which subdockets traditionally had been assigned manually and new
procedures need to be followed in these circumstances. A common
situation in which this will occur will be during the implementation
phase of electronic tariff filing. New root docket numbers will be
assigned to compliance filings when companies have outstanding
compliance obligations at the time they make their original, baseline
tariff filings. Because the original tariff filing giving rise to the
compliance obligation will not be part of the pipeline's or utility's
electronic database, it will not have a Filing Identifier and therefore
the pipeline or utility will not be able to include the Filing
Identifier in the compliance filing, and the compliance filing will be
assigned a new root docket number.
    14. This situation also may occur on a limited scale on an ongoing
basis. For example, in complaint cases, the filing initiating the
complaint is not filed by the pipeline or utility, but rather by a
third-party, typically a customer. In the process of resolving the
complaint, the Commission may require the pipeline or utility to file a
revision to its tariff. In such a circumstance, the pipeline or utility
will not have an initial filing in its database with which to associate
the compliance filing. Therefore, as described above, the compliance
filing made through the electronic tariff filing portal will receive a
new root docket, rather than a subdocket from the original complaint
case. In other words, the compliance filing in a complaint proceeding
will parallel the situation in which the pipeline or utility is
complying with a rulemaking, and the compliance filing will receive a
new root docket.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The complaint proceeding will determine whether the
pipeline or utility is in violation of its tariff or whether the
tariff is unjust and unreasonable. The compliance proceeding focuses
on whether the filing by the pipeline or utility satisfies the
Commission's determination in the complaint proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. In situations in which new root dockets are assigned to
compliance filings, the pipeline or utility making the filing still is
required to serve the compliance filing on all parties in the original
docket.\16\ For example, in a complaint case, the pipeline or utility
will need to serve the compliance filing on all parties in the original
complaint docket giving rise to the compliance obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ If service is made electronically by including a link to
the document in the Commission's eLibrary system, parties will be
notified of the new root docket assigned to the compliance filing.
18 CFR 385.2010(f)(3) (2009) (providing for service through ``the
transmission of a link to that document in the Commission's eLibrary
system'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In order to establish a simple and uniform method for
determining parties and service lists when a new root docket is
established, the Commission will follow its existing practice with
respect to the need to intervene. Currently, parties who have
intervened in initial proceedings do not have to re-intervene in
subdockets.\17\ However, when the Commission establishes new root
dockets (such as for compliance with rulemaking proceedings),
intervention is required to become a party to the new root docket
proceeding and to appear on the service list for that proceeding.\18\
The same approach will be taken whenever a new root docket is assigned
in a compliance proceeding: those wishing to become parties to a new
root docket will have to intervene in that docket. A simple-to-apply
rule will help

ensure that the parties to proceedings are known to each other and to
the Commission and that service of pleadings and orders is provided to
all parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission maintains one service list for root dockets
and all subdockets, not individual service lists for each subdocket.
    \18\ 18 CFR 385.214 (requiring intervention to become a party).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Moreover, to permit the easy identification of related filings
for compliance filings receiving new root dockets,\19\ pipelines and
utilities are urged to include as part of their eFiling description an
indication that they are making a compliance filing and the docket
number to which they are complying. This filing description will appear
in the Commission's notice and will aid in the identification of the
relationship between the compliance filing and the original proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These will be filings without the Filing Identifier of a
related filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission Orders

    (A) The procedures described in the body of this order will apply
to tariff filings that are submitted in electronic format.
    (B) The Secretary shall publish a copy of this order in the Federal
Register.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Norris voting present.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1538 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36889-36892]
[DOCID:fr06jy07-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0840; FRL-8333-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Redesignation of the Lancaster 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP) is requesting that the Lancaster nonattainment area
(``Lancaster Area'' or ``Area'') be redesignated as attainment for the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation request, the PADEP submitted SIP
revisions consisting of a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area that
provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at
least 10 years after redesignation. EPA is approving the 8-hour
maintenance plan. PADEP also submitted a 2002 base-year inventory for
the Lancaster Area which EPA is approving. In addition, EPA is
approving the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission
budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the Lancaster Area maintenance
plan for purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those
MVEBs. EPA is approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance
plan, and the 2002 base-year emissions inventory as revisions to the
Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on July 6, 2007
pursuant to the authority of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0840. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic

docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard

copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 15, 2007 (72 FR 27265), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation, and a 2002 base-year emissions inventory. The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on September 20, 2006, and
supplemented on November 8, 2006.

Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's redesignation request and
SIP revision for the maintenance plan, and the rationale for EPA's
proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated
here. No public comments were received on the NPR.
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C.Cir. 2006). On June
8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No.
04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the D.C.
Circuit clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to
those parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged.
Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for
areas currently classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the
Act as 8-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the
timing for emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the
Court's rejection of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard
in certain nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By
limiting the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-
hour standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule
that had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly
failed to retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas
under the anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1)
Nonattainment area nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements
based on an area's 1-hour nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185
penalty fees for 1-hour severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3)
measures to be implemented pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)
of the Act, on the contingency of an area not making reasonable further
progress toward attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to
attain that NAAQS; and (4) certain transportation conformity
requirements for certain types of Federal actions. The June 8 decision
clarified that the Court's reference to conformity requirements was
limited to requiring the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets until 8-hour budgets were available for 8-hour
conformity determinations.
    For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with the redesignation of this Area to
attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the Act and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
    With respect to the 8-hour standard, the Lancaster Area is
classified under subpart 2. The June 8, 2007 opinion clarifies that the
Court did not vacate the Phase 1 Rule's provisions with respect to
classifications for areas under subpart 2. The Court's decision
therefore upholds EPA's classifications for those areas classified
under subpart 2 for the 8-hour ozone standard. In its proposal, EPA
proposed to find that the Area had satisfied the requirements under the
1-hour standard whether the 1-hour standard was deemed to be reinstated
or whether the Court's decision on the petition for rehearing was
modified to require something less than compliance with all applicable
1-hour requirements. Because EPA proposed to find that the Area
satisfied the requirements under either scenario, EPA is proceeding to
finalize the redesignation and to conclude that the Area met the
requirements under the 1-hour standard applicable for purposes of
redesignation under the 8-hour standard. These include the provisions
of EPA's anti-backsliding rules, as well as the additional anti-
backsliding provisions identified by the court in its rulings. In its
June 8, 2007 decision the Court limited its vacatur so as to uphold
those provisions of the anti-backsliding requirements that were not
successfully challenged. Therefore, EPA finds that the Area has met the
anti-backsliding requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900 et seq.; 70 FR 30592,
30604 (May 26, 2005), which apply by virtue of the Area's
classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as the four
additional anti-backsliding provisions identified by the Court, or
alternatively, that such requirements are not applicable for purposes
of redesignation. In addition, with respect to the requirement for
transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard, the Court in its
June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with 1-hour MVEBs, anti-
backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets must be used for 8-
hour conformity determinations until replaced by 8-hour budgets. To
meet this requirement, conformity determinations in such areas must
comply with the applicable requirements of EPA's conformity regulations
at 40 CFR part 93.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base-year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania's redesignation request that was submitted on
September 20, 2006, and determined that it meets the redesignation
criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes
that the redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the
Lancaster Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. The final
approval of this redesignation request will change the designation of
the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA is approving the maintenance plan for the Lancaster
Area submitted on September 20, 2006 as a revision to the Pennsylvania
SIP. EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction
with its redesignation request. In addition, EPA is approving the 2002
base-year emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on September 20, 2006,
and supplemented on November 8, 2006 as a revision to the Pennsylvania
SIP. In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the public that we have
found that the MVEBs for NOX and VOCs in the Lancaster Area
for the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan are adequate and approved for
conformity purposes. As a result of our finding, the Lancaster Area
must use the MVEBs from the submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for
future conformity determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are
provided in the following table:

  Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons Per Day
                                  (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Budget year                         NOX      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..................................................     22.3     14.3
2018..................................................      9.0      7.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lancaster Area is subject to the CAA's requirements for marginal
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not
have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.
    This action, approving the redesignation of the Lancaster Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
the 2002 base-year emissions inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 25, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for the 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and the 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory for the Lancaster, Pennsylvania Area at the end of
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable        State submittal                            Additional
            revision               geographic area          date          EPA approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan    Lancaster Area      9/20/06, 11/08/06.  7/06/07 [Insert
 and 2002 Base Year Emissions     (Lancaster                              page number where
 Inventory.                       County).                                the document
                                                                          begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.339, the table entitled ``Pennsylvania--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Lancaster, PA Area
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.339  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

                                                                   Pennsylvania--Ozone
                                                                    [8-Hour Standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation \a\                                     Category/classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Lancaster, PA: Lancaster County.........     07/06/07                 Attainment.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-12850 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 231 (Monday, December 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68892-68894]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0697; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01540-R;
Amendment 39-21802; AD 2021-23-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109E helicopters. This AD was prompted
by reports of cracking in the center fuselage frame assembly in the
intersection of the lateral pylon and floor spar at station (STA) 1815
on the left- and right-hand sides. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the intersection of the lateral pylon and floor spar at
STA 1815 for cracking and, depending on the findings, repair, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 10, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 10,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available
in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0697.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0697; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
EASA AD, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is 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: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0256, dated November 17, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0256), to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo
S.p.A., formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A., and Agusta
S.p.A., Model A109E helicopters, serial numbers 11001 through 11674
inclusive.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Leonardo S.p.a.
Model A109E helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
August 26, 2021 (86 FR 47608). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
cracking in the center fuselage frame assembly in the intersection of
the lateral pylon and floor spar at STA 1815 on the left- and right-
hand sides. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the
intersection of the lateral pylon and floor spar at STA 1815 for
cracking and, depending on the findings, repair, as specified in EASA
AD 2020-0256.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the intersection
of the lateral pylon and floor spar at STA 1815 on the left- and right-
hand sides, which, if not addressed, could affect the structural
integrity of the helicopter. See EASA AD 2020-0256 for additional
background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from one commenter. The commenter was an
individual. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to that comment.

Request for Terminating Action

    An individual requested that the NPRM include a terminating action
for the repetitive inspections once an operator has completed the
repairs using the procedures in Parts II and III of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin 109EP-173,
dated November 10, 2020. The commenter did not provide justification
for this request, but the FAA infers that it is because the NPRM does
not provide a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. Neither EASA
AD 2020-0256, nor Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin 109EP-
173, dated November 10, 2020, provide terminating action for the
repetitive inspections specified in Paragraph (1), ``Repetitive
Inspection,'' of EASA AD 2020-0256. Paragraph (4), ``Terminating
Action,'' of EASA AD 2020-0256 states ``None.'' Paragraph (3),
``Corrective Action(s),'' of EASA AD 2020-0256 specifies that, after
accomplishing a repair in an affected area using Parts II (for the
left-hand side) and III (for the right-hand side) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin 109EP-173,
dated November 10, 2020, the next inspection can be deferred, but the
repetitive inspections of the affected area must continue. Leonardo
Helicopters has not provided a modification to the affected area that
eliminates the unsafe condition identified in this AD; therefore, the
FAA cannot include a terminating action in this AD. The FAA has not
changed this AD in regard to this issue.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. Except
for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0256 requires repetitive inspections of STA 1815 for
cracking, fluorescent liquid penetrant

inspections of any cracking to determine the extent of the cracking,
and repair if necessary. For both the left- and right-hand side repair,
the actions include removing equipment and furnishings to gain access
to the work area; testing the flight control system for correct travel
of the flight controls; performing an operational test of the cockpit
and passenger doors caution system; installing a new forward cap;
installing a new angle, butt strap, and web; installing new cotter
pins; and reinstalling the removed equipment and furnishings when the
repair is complete.
    For the left-hand side repair, the actions also include replacing
the nut plates with new nut plates, and an operational test of the
collective control system and tail rotor control system. For the right-
hand side repair, the actions include an operational test of the cyclic
control system.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2020-0256 specifies to accomplish corrective actions if
``any crack is detected in an affected area'' during a required
inspection. Figure 1 of the service information referenced in EASA AD
2020-0256 depicts the affected area, but the FWD bulkhead is mislabeled
as AFT. This AD includes an exception to clarify the correct location
of the FWD bulkhead depicted in Figure 1.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 70 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.......................  6 work-hours x $85               $0  $510 per inspection  $35,700 per
                                    per hour = $510                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The
agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might
need these repairs:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair left-hand side......................  120 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $6,600         $16,800
                                              $10,200.
Repair right-hand side.....................  120 work-hour x $85 per hour =                5,200          15,400
                                              $10,200.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2021-23-04 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21802; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0697; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01540-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 10, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109E helicopters,
certificated in any category, as identified in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0256, dated November 17, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0256).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5300, Fuselage
Structure.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the center
fuselage frame assembly in the intersection of the lateral pylon and
floor spar at station (STA) 1815 on the left- and right-hand sides.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the intersection
of the lateral pylon and floor spar at STA 1815 on the left- and
right-hand sides, which, if not addressed, could affect the
structural integrity of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0256.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0256

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0256 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0256 AD refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where Figure 1 of the service information referenced in EASA
AD 2020-0256 depicts the AFT bulkhead twice, for clarification, the
FWD bulkhead is mislabeled as AFT and depicted on the left side of
Figure 1, below 109-0320-96 POST ASSY (REF) and above FWD CAP.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0256 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those
parts from service.
    (5) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0256 or the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0256 specifies to contact the
manufacturer for repair information, for this AD: Before further
flight, do the repair using a method approved by the Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Leonardo S.p.a.'s
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (6) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2020-0256.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0256
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (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.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600
Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7330; email [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0256,
dated November 17, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0256, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0697.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on October 26, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-26333 Filed 12-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48849]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[FFP Project 36 LLC; Project No. 12919-002]

Notice Of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 1, 2011, FFP Project 36 LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower on the Mississippi River, in Issaquena
County Mississippi and East Carroll Parish, Louisiana. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Cat Island hydrokinetic project would consist of the
following: (1) Up to 2,800 SmarTurbine generating units installed in
arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 112,000 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables
would convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a
transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 245,280,000
kilowatt-hours (kWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 Days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12919-002) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20149 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P