[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 21930]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08596]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-45-000]

Moss Bluff Hub, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 29, 2013, Moss Bluff Hub, LLC filed to
revise its Statement of Operating Conditions to modify Sections 3.4.4,
3.5.4 and 3.5.7 to replace certain phrases, as more fully described in
the filing.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 12, 2013.

    Dated: April 3, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08596 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24281-24282]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09630]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69402; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Require That Listed Companies Have an Internal
Audit Function

April 18, 2013.
    On February 20, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
require that listed companies have an internal audit function. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 8, 2013.\3\ The Commission received 38 comments on the
proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69030 (March 4,
2013), 78 FR 15075.
    \4\ See letters to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission
from William F. Derbyshire, dated March 5, 2013; Rainer Lenz, Ph.D.,
dated March 9, 2013; Raymond A. Link, Chief Financial Officer, FEI
Company, dated March 11, 2013; Ann Marie Kim, dated March 12, 2013;
Jeff A. Killian, Chief Financial Officer, Cascade Microtech, Inc.,
dated March 14, 2013; Matthew Hogan, dated March 18, 2013; Ann
Rhoads, Chief Financial Officer, Zogenix, dated March 18, 2013;
Daniel P. Penberthy, Chief Financial Officer, Rand Capital
Corporation, dated March 19, 2013; Jeff Andreson, dated March 19,
2013; Gary R. Fairhead, dated March 19, 2013; Roger Hawley, Chief
Executive Officer, Zogenix, dated March 20, 2013; Vernon A. LoForti,
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, InfoSonics Corporation,
dated March 20, 2013; Howard K. Kaminsky, Chief Financial Officer,
Sport Chalet, Inc., dated March 21, 2013; Stanley P. Wirtheim, Chief
Financial Officer, Smartpros.Ltd., dated March 25, 2013; Simon J.
Parker, Head of Business Assurance, Innospec Inc., dated March 26,
2013; John H. Lowry III, Chief Financial Officer; Perceptron, Inc.,
dated March 27, 2013; David L. Nunes, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Pope Resources, dated March 27, 2013; Don Tracy, Chief
Financial Officer, MGP Ingredients, Inc., dated March 27, 2013;
Vickie Reed, Sr. Director and Controller, Zogenix, Inc., dated March
27, 2013; Jay Biskupski, Chief Financial Officer, Peregrine
Semiconductor Corporation, dated March 27, 2013; Alan F. Eisenberg,
Executive Vice President, Emerging Companies and Business
Development, Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), dated March
28, 2013; Mary Kay Fenton, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dated March 28, 2013;
Robert D. Shallish, Jr., Executive Vice President--Finance and Chief
Financial Officer, CONMED Corporation, dated March 28, 2013; Dorothy
M. Donohue, Deputy General Counsel--Securities Regulation,
Investment Company Institute, dated March 28, 2013; Richard F.
Chambers, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Institute of
Internal Auditors, dated March 28, 2013; Daniel C. Regis, Chairman,
Cray Inc. Audit Committee, Cray, Inc., dated March 29, 2013; Kenneth
Bertsch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Society of Corporate
Secretaries & Governance Professionals, dated March 29, 2013; Paul
R. Oldham, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President Finance
Administration, Electro Scientific Industries, dated March 29, 2013;
Joseph D. Hill, Chief Financial Officer, Metabolix, Inc., dated
March 29, 2013; Grant Thornton LLP, dated March 29, 2013; Michael
McConnell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Digimarc Corporation, dated March 29, 2013; Elizabeth L. Hougen,
Chief Financial Officer, Isis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., dated March 29,
2013; Julia Reigel, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, dated March
29, 2013; Sharon Barbari, Executive Vice President Finance and Chief
Financial Officer, Cytokinetics, Inc., dated March 29, 2013; Michael
G. Zybala, General Counsel, The InterGroup Corporation, dated April
3, 2013; Ramy R. Taraboulsi, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
SyncBASE Inc., dated April 6, 2013; Matthew C. Wolsfeld, Chief
Financial Officer, NTIC, dated April 10, 2013; and Barbara Russell,
Chief Financial Officer, TOR Minerals International Inc., dated
April 17, 2013.

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

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is April 22, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
Exchange's proposal, as described above, and the comments received.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ the
Commission designates June 6, 2013, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NASDAQ-2013-032).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09630 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 12352-12353]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-39-000]

FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.; Notice of Filing

March 17, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 4, 2009, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
filed a Petition for Declaratory Order, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for

review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 3, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6285 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 16746]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08036]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, Washington, DC 20549-
2736.

Extension:
    Rule 3a71-6, SEC File No. 270-656, OMB Control No. 3235-0715.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'') is soliciting comments on the existing collection
of information provided for Rule 3a71-6. The SEC plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 3a71-6 provides that non-U.S. security-based swap dealers and
major security-based swap participants may comply with certain Exchange
Act requirements via compliance with requirements of a foreign
financial regulatory system that the Commission has determined by order
to be comparable to those Exchange Act requirements, taking into
account the scope and objectives of the relevant foreign requirements,
and the effectiveness of supervision and enforcement under the foreign
regulatory regime.
    Requests for substituted compliance may come from parties or groups
of parties that may rely on substituted compliance, or from foreign
financial authorities supervising such parties or their security-based
swap activities. In practice, the Commission expects that the greater
portion of any such substituted compliance requests will be submitted
by foreign financial authorities. For purposes of the PRA, the
Commission estimates that three security-based swap dealers or major
security-based swap participants will submit substituted compliance
applications.
    The Commission staff estimates that the one-time reporting burden
associated with making each substituted compliance request pursuant to
Rule 3a71-6 would occur in the first year and would be approximately 80
hours of in-house counsel time, or 240 aggregate hours across the three
entities. The Commission staff estimates that the total costs
associated with each substituted compliance request would occur in the
first year and would be appropriately $84,000 for outside counsel, or
$252,000 in the aggregate across the three entities. Annualized over
three years, the time burden is 26.67 hours per respondent per year for
a total burden of 80 hours per year for all respondents. Annualized
over three years, the cost burden is $28,000 per respondent per year
for a total cost burden of $84,000 per year for all respondents.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the SEC, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimates of the
burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: April 17, 2019.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08036 Filed 4-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Reader’s Guide Chloropicrin

CRM: Nathan Mottl

EPA/OPPTS/OPP/SRRD

Reader’s Guide to the Chloropicrin E-Docket # OPP-2006-0661

EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to
the Chloropicrin E-docket.  The docket index lists the caption entries
sequentially, while this document lists them by subject matter.  The
Agency is providing the “Readers Guide” to allow the reader to more
easily access and navigate the various entries contained in the
Chloropicrin E-docket.

Phase 3 Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Entry 1.	Federal Register Notice: Chloropicrin; Human Health Risk
Assessment (HED) October 18, 2006.

Docket Entry 2.	Reader’s Guide to the Chloropicrin HED # EPA-HQ-

			OPP-2006-0661. Date 11/21/06.

Docket Entry 3.	Chloropicrin: Revised HED Human Health Risk

                                    Assessment for Phase 1: DP 305325,
PC Code 081501,

                                    Decision No. 346163.  Author Reaves,
Elissa and Smith,

                                    Bill Date: 10/03/06

Docket Entry 4.	Chloropicrin: Memorandum: Revised Draft of Environmental
Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment of Chloropicrin Following the Review
of 30-day Error Correction Comments. Author Khan, Faruque and Felkel,
James; EFEDH Date 02/23/06

Docket Entry 5.	Chloropicrin: Revised Level I Screening Ecological Risk
Assessment for the Reregistration of Chloropicrin Author Mottl, Nathan;
SRRD Date: 09/25/06

Docket Entry 6.	Chloropicrin: Revised Use Closure Memo

Author: Mottl, Nathan; SRRD Date: 06/06/05.

Docket Entry 7.	Chloropicrin: List A Reregistration Case 0040. PC Code
081501. Product Chemistry Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) Document.  DP Barcode D268927 Author: Dockter, K; HED
Date: 10/29/04

Docket Entry 8.	Chloropicrin: Review of Chloropicrin Incident Reports.

Author Blondell, J; HED Date 08/24/04

Docket Entry 9.	Chloropicrin: Meeting with TERA

Author: Mottl, Nathan; SRRD Date 07/31/05

Docket Entry 10.	Revised Occupational and Residential/Bystander
Assessment of the Antimicrobial Use (Remedial Wood Treatment) of
Chloropicrin for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document.
 PC Code 081501, DP Barcode D314388. Date 11/21/06


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43483-43488]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3628; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-025-AD;
Amendment 39-18574; AD 2016-13-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-12-04,
for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. AD 2012-12-04 required repetitive external detailed
inspections and nondestructive inspections to detect cracks in the
fuselage skin along the chem-mill steps at stringers S-1 and S-2R,
between station (STA) 400 and STA 460, and repair if necessary. This
new AD requires a preventive modification of the fuselage skin at crown
stringers S-1 and S-2R. This new AD also reduces the inspection
threshold for certain airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
determination that, for certain airplanes, the skin pockets adjacent to
the Air Traffic Control (ATC) antenna are susceptible to widespread
fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking of the fuselage skin panels at the chem-mill steps, which
could result in sudden fracture and failure of the fuselage skin
panels, and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective August 9, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 9,
2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in

this AD as of July 23, 2012 (77 FR 36134, June 18, 2012).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3628.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3628; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2012-12-04, Amendment 39-17083 (77 FR 36134,
June 18, 2012) (``AD 2012-12-04''). AD 2012-12-04 applied to certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2015 (80 FR
55045) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that,
for certain airplanes, the skin pockets adjacent to the ATC antenna are
susceptible to widespread fatigue damage. The NPRM proposed to continue
to require repetitive external detailed inspections and nondestructive
inspections to detect cracks in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill
steps at stringers S-1 and S-2R, between STA 400 and STA 460, and
repair if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require a preventive
modification of the fuselage skin at crown stringers S-1 and S-2R. In
addition, the NPRM proposed to revise certain compliance times. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage
skin panels at the chem-mill steps, which could result in sudden
fracture and failure of the fuselage skin panels, and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.

Comments

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

Requests To Clarify Compliance Time Changes

    Boeing asked that we change the NPRM preamble, which stated that
the proposed AD would reduce the inspection thresholds ``and repetitive
intervals'' for certain airplanes. Boeing stated that the repetitive
inspection intervals specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, remain unchanged from the
previous version of the service information, which was mandated by AD
2012-12-04. Boeing added that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, reduced only the
inspection threshold for those airplanes.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We
have changed the language in the SUMMARY of this final rule
accordingly.

Request To Clarify Acceptable Previous Alternative Methods of
Compliance (AMOCs)

    Boeing and Southwest Airlines (SWA) asked that we revise paragraph
(l)(4) of the proposed AD. Boeing requested that we state that AMOCs
approved for AD 2012-12-04 are approved as AMOCs for ``all
corresponding requirements''--instead of just the requirements of
paragraph (g)--of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that this proposed
change matches the wording in paragraph (l)(4) of AD 2012-12-04. SWA
added that paragraph (l)(4) of the proposed AD does not provide credit
for AMOCs approved for the actions specified in paragraphs (f) and (g)
of AD 2008-19-03, Amendment 39-15670 (73 FR 56958, October 1, 2008)
(``AD 2008-19-03''). (AD 2008-19-03 was superseded by AD 2012-12-04.)
    We agree to revise paragraph (n)(4) of this AD (paragraph (l)(4) of
the proposed AD) to specify that AMOCs approved for AD 2012-12-04 are
approved as AMOCs for all the corresponding provisions of this AD.
    It is not necessary, however, to state that AMOCs approved for AD
2008-19-03 are approved for the requirements of this AD. When AD 2008-
19-03 was superseded, the corresponding provisions of AD 2008-19-03
were retained in AD 2012-12-04. Therefore, no change to this final rule
is necessary in this regard.

Request To Separate Certain Actions for Clarification

    Boeing, ASL Airlines France, and SWA asked that we clarify the
requirements of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD by separating the
actions into two core paragraphs: One paragraph for ``Repairs'' and one
paragraph for the ``Preventive Modification.'' Boeing stated that
tables 1, 2, and 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293,
Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, address the repair and preventive
modification instructions for Group 1 airplanes, and table 5 addresses
repair instructions for Group 2 airplanes; therefore table 5 should not
be included in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD. Boeing also stated
that Note (e) of tables 1, 2, and 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, provides a terminating
action provision for the repetitive inspections under the installed
preventive modification doubler; therefore a terminating action should
be added to paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD. ASL Airlines France
stated that, as written, paragraph (h) of the proposed AD is confusing
because it would require the preventive modification specified in
paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD to be installed only if cracking is
found. SWA stated that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293,
Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, does not provide repair
instructions for cracks found in four or more tear strap bays and
certain other conditions, as specified in figure 6 or figure 8 of the
Accomplishment Instructions. SWA asked that a provision be added to
paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD to allow for both new and existing
repairs to remain on the airplane if the repair covers all eight chem-
mill step inspection areas between STA 410 and STA 450, if approved by
the FAA or a Boeing-approved representative.

    We agree with the commenters' requests for the reasons provided. We
have separated paragraph (h) of the proposed AD into paragraphs (h) and
(i) of this AD to clarify the actions identified by the commenters (and
have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly).

Request To Add Exception for the Preventive Modification

    Boeing asked that we add a new exception to address the preventive
modification. Boeing stated that paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD
addresses repairs, and a similar paragraph needs to be added to address
the preventive modification specified in Part 9 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3,
dated January 23, 2015; Part 9 specifies contacting Boeing for
preventive modification instructions. Boeing added that the new
exception should be done using a method approved by the FAA or a Boeing
approved representative.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Part 9 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3,
dated January 23, 2015, specifies contacting Boeing for modification
instructions if an existing repair is installed that was not
accomplished in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015. We have revised paragraph
(l)(3) of this AD (paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD) to include the
exception to account for the preventive modification.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental
type certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to
state that installation of STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/BE866B732F6CF31086257B9700692796?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se) does
not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final
rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a
``change in product'' AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply
with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Restate the Optional Modification in AD 2012-12-04

    Boeing and Al Nippon Airways (ANA) asked that the optional
modification specified in paragraph (i) of AD 2012-12-04 be restated in
this AD. The commenters stated that Section 1.F., ``Approval'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1305, Revision 1, dated September
19, 2012, includes approval of the accomplishment of the inspections
and modifications, in accordance with that service information for the
modified area only, as a method of compliance with the modification
specified in paragraph (i) of AD 2012-12-04. The commenters added that
since the optional modification is not restated in the proposed AD,
this approval is now eliminated.
    We agree with the commenters for the reasons provided. We have
restated the optional modification in new paragraph (j) of this AD
(paragraph (i) of AD 2012-12-04), and redesignated subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Clarify the Extent of AMOC Approvals

    Boeing asked whether AMOCs would be considered for ``preventive
modifications,'' in addition to repairs, in paragraph (l)(3) of the
proposed AD. Boeing stated that adding this would address the AMOC
requirement for the mandatory preventive modification.
    We agree with the commenter's request because deviations to the
mandated preventive modification are possible. Therefore, we have added
``modification'' (as well as ``alteration'') to paragraph (n)(3) of
this AD (paragraph (l)(3) of the proposed AD).

Request To Clarify Exception

    ASL Airlines France asked that we clarify the reference in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, specified in the
``Condition'' columns. The commenter stated that the flight-cycle
compliance time referred to in these columns specifies ``at the
Revision 3 date of this service bulletin'' instead of ``as of the
effective date of this AD.'' The commenter asked that we include a new
paragraph to clarify that ``as of the effective date of this AD''
should be used for compliance throughout the proposed AD.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern; however, paragraph (l)(1)
of the proposed AD already addressed this difference; paragraph (j)(2)
of this AD retains this provision. Therefore, no change to this AD is
necessary in this regard.

Request To Correct Typographical Errors

    Boeing and ASL Airlines France asked that we correct the paragraph
reference in Note 1 to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD and in
paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD. The commenters stated that these
are typographical errors.
    The information in Note 1 to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD has
been included in paragraph (j) of this final rule (paragraph (i) of the
proposed AD), therefore ``Note 1'' no longer exists. In light of this,
the requested correction is not necessary in this regard. We have
corrected the reference in paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD
(paragraph (l)(3) of this AD) accordingly.

Change to Paragraph (k) of This AD

    We have revised the language in paragraph (k) of this AD (paragraph
(i) in the proposed AD) to clarify that the post-repair/post-
modification inspections are airworthiness limitations that are
required by maintenance and operational rules; therefore, these
inspections are not required by this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD 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 AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3,
dated January 23, 2015. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive external detailed inspections and non-destructive
inspections to detect cracks in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill
steps at stringers S-1 and S-2R, between STA 400 and STA 460, and
repair of any cracking. The service information also describes
procedures for a modification of the chem-mill steps at the locations
identified, including related investigative actions and corrective
actions, and repetitive post-mod inspections. 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 186 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained inspections from AD 2012- Between 7 and 15                 $0  Between $595 and     Between $110,670
 12-04.                             work-hours x $85                     $1,275 per           and $237,150 per
                                    per hour,                            inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    depending on
                                    airplane
                                    configuration =
                                    between $595 and
                                    $1,275 per
                                    inspection cycle.
New modification.................  236 work-hours x                  1  $20,060............  $3,731,160.
                                    $85 per hour =
                                    $20,060.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We currently have no specific cost estimates associated with the parts necessary for the modification. We
  cannot determine the cost of the materials because the modification parts must be sized at the time the
  modification is installed, taking into account any existing repairs in the area.

    We have received no definitive data that enables us to provide a
cost estimate 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

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-12-04, Amendment 39-17083 (77 FR 36134, June 18, 2012), and adding
the following new AD:

2016-13-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18574; Docket No. FAA-
2015-3628; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-025-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 9, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-12-04, Amendment 39-17083 (77 FR 36134,
June 18, 2012) (``AD 2012-12-04'').

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400,
and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3,
dated January 23, 2015.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/BE866B732F6CF31086257B9700692796?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE 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 reports of cracks found on the fuselage
skin at the chem-mill steps, and the determination that, for certain
airplanes, the skin pockets adjacent to the Air Traffic Control
antenna are susceptible to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin
panels at the chem-mill steps, which could result in sudden fracture
and failure of the fuselage skin panels, and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in tables 1, 2, 3, and 5 of
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, except as required
by paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD: Do the actions specified
in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, except as required by
paragraph (l)(3) of this AD. Repeat the applicable inspections
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293,
Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015.

    (1) Do an external detailed inspection for cracking of the
fuselage skin chem-mill steps.
    (2) Do an external non-destructive (medium frequency eddy
current, magneto optical imaging, C-Scan, or ultrasonic phased
array) inspection for cracking of the fuselage skin chem-mill steps.

(h) Repair

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in
paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Repair before further flight in accordance with Part 2 (for
Group 1 airplanes) or Part 7 (for Group 2 airplanes) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015; except as required by
paragraph (l)(3) of this AD. Installation of a repair that meets the
conditions specified in Note (a) of table 1, 2, 3, or 5 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293,
Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for the area
covered by that repair only.
    (2) For Group 1 airplanes: Accomplishing the modification
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD is a method of compliance with
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If any cracking is found in any area not covered by the
preventive modification doubler during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Repair before further flight, in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23,
2015, except as provided by paragraph (n)(4) of this AD. Both new
and existing repairs are allowed if the repair covers all eight
chem-mill step inspection areas between STA 410 and STA 450, and the
repairs were done using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD.

(i) Preventive Modification

    For Group 1 airplanes: At the applicable time specified in
tables 1, 2 and 3 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015,
except as required by paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, do a
preventive modification of the fuselage skin at crown stringers S-1
and S-2R, including all applicable related investigative actions in
accordance with Part 9 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23,
2015, except as provided by paragraph (n)(4) of this AD. Do all
applicable related investigative actions concurrently with the
modification. Installation of a preventive modification terminates
the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for
the modified area only. Thereafter, repeat the inspections specified
in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015.

(j) Optional Modification

    Accomplishing a modification of the chem-mill steps at any
location identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision
2, dated August 10, 2011, using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, terminates
the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for
the modified area only.

(k) Post-Repair/Post-Modification Inspections

    Tables 4 and 6 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated January 23,
2015, specify post-repair/post-modification airworthiness limitation
inspections in compliance with 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the modified
locations, which support compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or
129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations, these inspections are
required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore
unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these
inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an alternative
method of compliance.

(l) Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3,
dated January 23, 2015, specifies a compliance time ``after the
Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) Where the Condition column of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293,
Revision 3, dated January 23, 2015, specifies a condition based on
when an airplane has or has not been inspected, this AD bases the
condition on whether an airplane has or has not been inspected on
the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3,
dated January 23, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair or
preventive modification instructions: Before further flight, do the
repair or preventive modification, as applicable, using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(n)(1) of this AD.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before July 23, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-12-04), using
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 1, dated July 7,
2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2011, which was
incorporated by reference in AD 2012-12-04.

(n) 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 (o)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, 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
method must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2012-12-04 are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of this AD.

(o) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer
Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los
Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (p)(5) and (p)(6) of this AD.

(p) 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.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 9, 2016.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 3, dated
January 23, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 23, 2012 (77 FR 36134, June 18, 2012).
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1293, Revision 2, dated
August 10, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (6) 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.
    (7) 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 21, 2016.
Dorr Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-15291 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 66858]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2012-0020; OMB No. 1660-0009]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, The Declaration Process: Requests for
Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental Federal
Disaster Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share Adjustments

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: The Declaration Process: Requests for Preliminary Damage
Assessment (PDA), Requests for Supplemental Federal Disaster
Assistance, Appeals, and Requests for Cost Share Adjustments.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0009.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 010-0-13, Request for
Presidential Disaster Declaration Major Disaster or Emergency.
    Abstract: When a disaster occurs in a State, the Governor of the
State or the Acting Governor in his/her absence, may request a major
disaster declaration or an emergency declaration. The Governor should
submit the request to the President through the appropriate Regional
Administrator to ensure prompt acknowledgement and processing. The
information obtained by joint Federal, State, and local preliminary
damage assessments will be analyzed by FEMA regional senior level
staff. The regional summary and the regional analysis and
recommendation will include a discussion of State and local resources
and capabilities, and other assistance available to meet the disaster
related needs. The Administrator of FEMA provides a recommendation to
the President and also provides a copy of the Governor's request. In
the event the information required by law is not contained in the
request, the Governor's request cannot be processed and forwarded to
the White House. In the event the Governor's request for a major
disaster declaration or an emergency declaration is not granted, the
Governor may appeal the decision.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,088 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $469,859.04. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government
previously reported in the 60-day Federal Register Notice (77 FR 47083,
Aug. 7, 2012) has been changed to $2,952,532.52 to include the cost for
the Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDA) for Individual Assistance.

    Dated: October 26, 2012.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-27163 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 51)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11505-11507]
[DOCID:fr18mr09-20]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0240; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-015-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Models
DA 40 and DA 40F Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    A case was reported where the NLG leg of a DA 40 aircraft failed
in the area of the nose gear leg pivot axle. The affected airplane
was mostly operated on grass runways and used for training
operations. The investigation showed that the failure was due to a
fatigue crack that had developed in the pivot axle. Subsequent
material inspections determined that these cracks may also develop
on other aircraft, depending on the type of operation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
further cases of NLG failure, possibly causing damage to the
aircraft and injuries to occupants. To address and correct this
unsafe condition, ACG issued AD A-2005-005 to require repetitive
inspections of the NLG leg and, in case cracks are found,
replacement of the NLG leg with a serviceable unit. Since that AD
was issued, Diamond Aircraft Industries developed a redesigned NLG
leg which is not affected by the cracking phenomenon addressed by AD
A-2005-005.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0240;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-015-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On August 10, 2007, we issued AD 2007-17-06, Amendment 39-15164 (72
FR 46549, August 21, 2007). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2007-17-06, Diamond Aircraft Industries
developed a redesigned NLG leg that is not affected by the cracking
phenomenon addressed in Austro Control, which is the aviation authority
for Austria, AD No. A-2005-005, dated November 15, 2005.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2009-0016, dated January 22, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    A case was reported where the NLG leg of a DA 40 aircraft failed
in the area of the nose gear leg pivot axle. The affected airplane
was mostly operated on grass runways and used for training
operations. The investigation showed that the failure was due to a
fatigue crack that had developed in the pivot axle. Subsequent
material inspections determined that these cracks may also develop
on other aircraft, depending on the type of operation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
further cases of NLG failure, possibly causing damage to the
aircraft and injuries to occupants. To address and correct this
unsafe condition, ACG issued AD A-2005-005 to require repetitive
inspections of the NLG leg and, in case cracks are found,
replacement of the NLG leg with a serviceable unit. Since that AD
was issued, Diamond Aircraft Industries developed a redesigned NLG
leg which is not affected by the cracking phenomenon addressed by AD
A-2005-005.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD retains the
requirements of ACG AD A-2005-005, which is superseded, and excludes
aircraft from the applicability that have the improved NLG leg
installed.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3,

dated November 17, 2008. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 678 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $54,240, or $80 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 5 work-hours and require parts costing $740, for a cost of
$1,140 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15164 (72 FR
46549, August 21, 2007), and adding the following new AD:
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2009-0240;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-015-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 17, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-17-06, Amendment 39-15164.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplanes that:
    (1) are certificated in any category; and
    (2) are not equipped with a nose landing gear (NLG) leg part
number (P/N) D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Model                        Serial numbers (S/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DA 40.....................................  All S/Ns beginning with
                                             40.006.
DA 40F....................................  All S/Ns beginning with
                                             40.F001.
                                            All S/Ns beginning with
                                             40.FC001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A case was reported where the NLG leg of a DA 40 aircraft failed
in the area of the nose gear leg pivot axle. The affected airplane
was mostly operated on grass runways and used for training
operations. The investigation showed that the failure was due to a
fatigue crack that had developed in the pivot axle. Subsequent
material inspections determined that these cracks may also develop
on other aircraft, depending on the type of operation.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
further cases of NLG failure, possibly causing damage to the
aircraft and injuries to occupants. To address and correct this
unsafe condition, ACG issued AD A-2005-005 to require repetitive
inspections of the NLG leg and, in case cracks are found,
replacement of the NLG leg with a serviceable unit. Since that AD
was issued, Diamond Aircraft Industries developed a redesigned NLG
leg which is not affected by the cracking phenomenon addressed by AD
A-2005-005.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD retains the
requirements of ACG AD A-2005-005, which is superseded, and excludes
aircraft from the applicability that have the improved NLG leg
installed.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Inspect the nose landing gear (NLG) leg for cracks within
the next 12 months after September 25, 2007 (the effective date
retained from AD 2007-17-06) or within the next 200 hours time-in-
service (TIS) after September 25, 2007 (the effective date retained
from AD 2007-17-06), whichever occurs later. Do the inspection
following

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated April 25, 2007, or Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3,
No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November 17, 2008.
    (2) If any cracks are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of the AD or during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2)(ii) or (f)(3) of this AD, replace the NLG leg
before further flight. Do the replacement following Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No.
MSBD4-046/1, dated April 25, 2007; or Diamond Aircraft Industries
GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3,
dated November 17, 2008.
    (i) Replacing a NLG leg with a part number (P/N) D41-3223-10-
00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.) terminates the repetitive
inspections required in this AD.
    (ii) Replacing a NLG leg with a P/N D41-3223-10-00 requires
repetitive inspections as specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD
until a P/N D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.) is
installed.
    (3) If no cracks are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or cracked NLG leg is replaced with a P/
N D41-3223-10-00 NLG leg, repetitively inspect thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 12 months or 200 hours TIS, whichever occurs
later, until a P/N D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --3, etc.) is
installed. Do these repetitive inspections following Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3,
No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November 17, 2008.
    (i) If a repetitive inspection occurs before the effective date
of this AD, then you may use Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated
April 25, 2007.
    (ii) All inspections that occur after the effective date of this
AD must be done following Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November
17, 2008.
    (4) After installing a P/N D41-3223-10-00--1 or higher (--2, --
3, etc.) as a replacement part, installing a NLG leg P/N D41-3223-
10-00 is no longer allowed.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2009-0016, dated January 22, 2009; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/1, No. MSBD4-046/1, dated
April 25, 2007; and Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. MSB40-046/3, No. MSBD4-046/3, dated November
17, 2008, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 11, 2009.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-5764 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P