[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 128 (Thursday, July 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43052-43055]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1401; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00760-T;
Amendment 39-22492; AD 2023-13-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly
Known as Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 340B airplanes. This
AD was prompted by a determination that the affected airplanes must not
be operated at a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) above 29,000 pounds.
This AD requires amending the applicable airplane flight manual (AFM)
by incorporating a temporary revision (TR) to reduce the MTOW, 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 July 21, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 21,
2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by August 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1401; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1401; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00760-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private,

that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive
to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0121, dated June 13, 2023 (EASA
AD 2023-0121) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Saab AB, Support and Services Model SAAB 340B
airplanes. The MCAI states that the affected airplanes must not be
operated at a MTOW above 29,000 pounds. This condition, if not
corrected, could allow flight in an uncertified envelope, and therefore
could lead to a potential unsafe condition.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address the possibility of flight in
an uncertified envelope, which could result in reduced structural
capability and reduced controllability of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1401.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0121 specifies procedures for amending the applicable
AFM by incorporating the specified AFM TR to reduce the MTOW. This
material 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.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2023-0121 described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

Compliance With AFM Revisions

    EASA AD 2023-0121 requires operators to ``inform all flight crews''
of revisions to the AFM, and thereafter to ``operate the aeroplane
accordingly.'' However, this AD would not specifically require those
actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations. FAA
regulations require operators furnish to pilots any changes to the AFM
(for example, 14 CFR 121.137), and to ensure the pilots are familiar
with the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flightcrew
training requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by
the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is
available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to
follow the procedures in the existing AFM including all updates. 14 CFR
91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply
with the operating limitations specified in the AFM. Therefore,
including a requirement in this AD to operate the airplane according to
the revised AFM would be redundant and unnecessary.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result,
EASA AD 2023-0121 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD
requires compliance with EASA AD 2023-0121 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as
the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0121 does not mean
that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where
the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance
times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the
section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD
2023-0121. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0121 for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-
2023-1401 after this AD is published.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the MTOW for the airplane was increased from 29,000 to 30,000
pounds without determining if the propeller MTOW could be increased to
30,000 pounds. Therefore, the airplanes must not be operated at a MTOW
above 29,000 pounds.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in the possibility
of flight in an uncertified envelope, which could result in reduced
structural capability and reduced controllability of the airplane. In
addition, the required AFM amendment must be done within a compliance
time of 7 days in order to address the unsafe condition. Accordingly,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 64 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85           $5,440
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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:

2023-13-07 Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly Known as Saab AB,
Saab Aeronautics): Amendment 39-22492; Docket No. FAA-2023-1401;
Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00760-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 21, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Support and Services (formerly known
as Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics) Model SAAB 340B airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0121, dated June 13, 2023
(EASA AD 2023-0121).

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the affected
airplanes must not be operated at a maximum take-off weight (MTOW)
above 29,000 pounds. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
possibility of flight in an uncertified envelope, which could result
in reduced structural capability and reduced controllability of the
airplane.

(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 2023-0121.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0121

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0121 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2023-0121 specifies to
``inform all flight crews and, thereafter, operate the aeroplane
accordingly,'' this AD does not require those actions as those
actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations
(see 14 CFR 91.9, 14 CFR 91.505, and 14 CFR 121.137).
    (3) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0121.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): 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 responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Saab AB, Support and Services'
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) 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 2023-0121,
dated June 13, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0121, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 27, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14227 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


      MEMORANDUM

      DATE:06/24/2015
      FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8
      TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
      SUBJECT:	Summit on Climate Change and Health on 06/23/2015

      SUMMARY:
      Laura Farris participated on a panel discussion on 06/23/2015 to discuss the Clean Power Plan. The meeting was held in Denver, Colorado. The Clean Power Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014.

      ATTENDEES:

EPA
      Laura Farris, EPA Region 8

      External Stakeholders
	General public


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48435-48439]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22510]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0058; FRL-9969-61-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Michigan regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as
a revision to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP). Michigan
has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule. Michigan has also met the requirements for a determination of the
adequacy of its regional haze plan with its negative declaration
submitted with the progress report.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 18, 2017,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 17, 2017. If relevant
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0058 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Reports and Adequacy
of Determinations
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report every five years
that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected
by emissions from within the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are
also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a
determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP. See
40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years after the
submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    Michigan submitted its regional haze plan on November 5, 2010. EPA
approved Michigan's regional haze plan into its SIP on December 3,
2012, 77 FR 71533.
    In order to satisfy the requirements for Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) for certain taconite ore processing facilities in
Minnesota and Michigan, EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan
(taconite FIP) on February 6, 2013, 78 FR 8706. In Michigan, the
taconite facility impacted by this FIP is the Tilden Mining Company.
The taconite FIP was stayed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on
June 14, 2013. EPA subsequently reached a settlement agreement with
Cliffs Natural Resources and Arcelor Mittal that was fully executed on
April 9, 2015. On April 12, 2016, EPA published a final rule that
modifies the taconite FIP with the settlement agreement conditions, 81
FR 21672.
    Michigan submitted its five-year progress report on January 12,
2016. The State submitted its determination of adequacy with the
progress report.
    There are two Class I areas in Michigan, Isle Royale National Park
(Isle Royale) located on Lake Superior and Seney National Wildlife
Refuge (Seney) located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
    The emission reductions from several Federal programs contribute to
visibility improvement in Michigan. In its regional haze plan, Michigan
considered the emission reductions from the Tier 2 Gasoline, Heavy-duty
Highway Diesel, Non-road Diesel, and a variety of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology programs. Michigan elected to use the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule

(CSAPR) to satisfy BART for its power plant units.

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Reports and Adequacy of
Determinations

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must periodically submit a regional
haze progress report every five years that address the seven elements
found in 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their
existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible listed
actions based on information in the progress report.

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    The Regional Haze Rule provides the required elements for five-year
progress reports at 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA finds that Michigan satisfied
the 40 CFR 51.308(g) requirements with its progress report. EPA finds
that, with its negative declaration, Michigan also satisfied the
requirements for the determination of adequacy provided in 40 CFR
51.308(h).
    The following sections discuss the information provided by Michigan
in the progress report submission, along with EPA's analysis and
determination of whether the submission met the applicable requirements
of 51.308.

1. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Michigan summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were included in its 2010 regional
haze SIP. Specifically, the report addresses the status of the on-the-
books emissions reduction measures. The measures include applicable
Federal programs including: Clean Air Interstate Rule--or CAIR; CSAPR;
Tier II for on-highway mobile sources; heavy-duty diesel standards; low
sulfur fuel standards; and Federal control programs for non-road mobile
sources. Michigan used CSAPR to satisfy BART for its subject electric
generating units (EGUs). Even with the delay in implementing CSAPR, the
EGUs in Michigan subject to BART have reduced sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions. In the
progress report, Michigan compares 2013 state-wide SO2 and
NOX emissions from EGUs to 2009 emissions. In this period,
SO2 emissions decreased from 310,000 tons to 230,109 tons,
or by 26 percent. NOX emissions decreased from 144,440 tons
to 122,653 tons, or by 15 percent.
    Michigan also expects reductions of about 1,400 tons NOX
per year, and 300 tons SO2 per year, from the implementation
of the taconite FIP.
    In its regional haze plan, Michigan noted the additional emission
reductions expected from several Federal programs. Michigan considered
the reductions from: Tier 2 Gasoline; Heavy-duty Highway Diesel; Non-
road Diesel; and a variety of Maximum Achievable Control Technology
programs. Michigan did not rely on additional emissions controls from
other states in its regional haze strategy. The additional emission
reductions from the programs and other states will not delay visibility
improvement and may well accelerate the improvement.
    Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control
requirements for sources in the State, Michigan's progress report
provides a summary of the five non-EGU sources identified in the 2010
Regional Haze SIP as subject to BART. These sources include the LaFarge
Midwest Alpena Plant, Escanaba Paper Company, St. Marys Cement, Smurfit
Stone Container Corporation and Tilden Mining Company. Three of the
five BART sources are required to apply additional or more stringent
controls beyond those required in the Michigan BART determinations due
to USEPA disapprovals of the State BART determinations and issuance of
additional FIPs.
    EPA finds the implementation of Michigan's control measures
adequate. EPA also expects SO2 and NOX emission
reductions from the taconite facilities--most specifically, from the
Tilden Mining Company in Michigan. However, given the implementation
schedule in the taconite FIP, most of the resulting emission reductions
will occur in the 2018-2028 implementation period.
    EPA finds the summary of emission reductions achieved from control
strategy implementation adequate.

2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved in the State Through
Implementation of Measures

    In its regional haze SIP and progress report, Michigan focuses its
assessment on NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs as
a result of the implementation of CAIR and CSAPR, as well as emissions
from non-EGUs. In the progress report, Michigan listed emission
reductions in terms of projected impacts on the two affected Class I
areas--Isle Royale and Seney. Emissions reductions were presented based
on the top ten in-state point sources impacting these two areas.
    For the Isle Royale area, emission reduction for the top ten
impacting point sources combined was 48,000 tons for SO2 and
8,400 tons for NOX. For the Seney area, emission reduction
for the top 10 impacting point sources combined was 16,000 tons for
SO2 and 2,700 tons for NOX.
    EPA concludes that Michigan has adequately addressed the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. Michigan provides estimates of
reductions of NOX and SO2 from EGUs and non-EGUs
that have occurred since Michigan submitted its regional haze SIP.
Given the large NOX and SO2 reductions that have
actually occurred, further analysis of emissions from other sources or
other pollutants was unnecessary in this first implementation period.

3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes for Each Mandatory
Class I Federal Area in the State

    Michigan reports that visibility conditions at Isle Royale National
Park have improved to 18.9 deciviews (dv) in 2013 from its 2000-2004
baseline of 21.59 dv for the 20 percent most impaired days. The State
also reports that visibility conditions at Seney have improved to 20.6
dv in 2013, from its 2000-2004 baseline of 24.37 dv for the 20 percent
most impaired days. The 2018 reasonable progress goal is 20.86 dv for
Isle Royale and 23.58 dv for Seney. For the 20 percent least impaired
days at Isle Royale, visibility has improved 2.7 dv in 2013, from the
2000-2004 baseline. At Seney, visibility has improved 3.8 dv in 2013,
from the 2000-2004 baseline.
    Michigan provided annual and five-year rolling averages for the
impaired and least impaired days at both Isle Royale and Seney from
2000 to 2014.
    EPA finds that Michigan properly reported the current visibility
conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days, the
difference between current conditions and baseline conditions for the
most impaired and least impaired days, and the change in visibility for
the most impaired and least impaired days over the past five years.
Michigan's visibility progress is on track as improvement has been
shown for the 20 percent least impaired days and is on pace for the 20
percent most impaired days at both affected Class I areas.

4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes of Visibility-Impairing
Pollutants

    In its regional haze plan submitted in 2010, Michigan provided its
2005 base emissions and projected 2018 emissions. In the 2010 plan,
Michigan compared the base data from 2005 with a 2009 emissions
inventory constructed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors

Consortium. The progress report gives current annual emissions for
ammonia (NH3), NOX, SO2, coarse
particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and reactive organic gases (ROG). These figures can
be compared to the base and 2018 projected emissions. The emissions
inventories from the 2005, 2009 and 2018 datasets include all point,
nonpoint, on-road, non-road, marine-aircraft-rail (MAR), and other
sources.
    For SO2, Michigan reports 2005 base emissions of 439,145
tons, 2009 emissions of 303,159 tons, and projects 314,328 tons in
2018, which would be a 28 percent reduction from the 2005 base year.
Michigan noted that SO2 emissions have been steadily
declining. Point sources comprise 93 percent of SO2
emissions, so several projects at coal-burning EGUs have driven the
decline in SO2 emissions.
    For NOX, Michigan reports 2005 base emissions of 586,482
tons, 2009 emissions of 447,176 tons, and projects 309,549 tons in
2018, which would be a 47 percent decrease from the 2005 base year. For
NOX emissions, mobile sources are the main contributing
sector, and, as such, implementation of mobile source programs will
continue to decrease NOX emissions in Michigan with expected
reductions from EGUs and taconite facilities providing some assistance.
    For PM10, Michigan reports a 2005 base of 98,181 tons,
2009 emissions of 105,301 tons, and projects 98,753 tons in 2018, which
is an increase of less than 1% from the 2005 base year. For
PM2.5, Michigan reports a 2005 base of 85,839 tons, 2009
emissions of 96,720, and projects 90,485 tons in 2018, which is an
increase of 5.3% from the 2005 base year. In the 2010 Regional Haze
SIP, Michigan predicted these particulate matter increases, but it was
deemed insignificant relative to the visibility improvements from the
large reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions over
those same time periods. NOX and SO2 emissions
reductions have a much greater impact on visibility improvement.
    Table 1 below shows the emissions reductions from 2005-2009 versus
projected 2018 emission reductions from the 2010 Michigan regional haze
SIP submission.

                                         Table 1--Emission Reductions: 2005 to 2009 vs Projected 2018 Reductions
                                                                          [tpy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NH3             NOX             SO2            PM10            PM2.5            ROG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 to 2018 expected reduction.........................         -78,156         276,933         124,817            -572          -4,646         177,622
2005 to 2009 reduction..................................          -5,880         139,306         135,986          -7,120         -10,881          78,872
% of reductions achieved................................             N/A             50%             28%             N/A             N/A             30%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For NH3, Michigan reports a 2005 base of 67,489 tons,
2009 emissions of 73,369 tons, and projects 78,156 tons in 2018, which
is an increase of 15.8% from the 2005 base year. Non-point source,
agricultural livestock manure management in particular, are the main
sector for NH3 emissions in Michigan.
    For ROG emissions, Michigan reports a 2005 base of 564,643 tons,
2009 emissions of 485,771 tons, and projects 396,921 tons in 2018,
which is a decrease of 30% from the 20005 base year. Michigan's
anthropogenic ROG emissions are mainly from mobile and non-point
sources. These emissions are gradually decreasing from implementation
of a variety of programs.
    EPA finds that Michigan has satisfied the requirement of an
analysis tracking emissions progress for the current five-year period.
Michigan appears to be on track for reaching its 2018 emission
projections.

5. Assessment of Any Significant Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions

    Michigan provided an assessment of SO2, NOX,
and NH3 emissions changes in-state and for the three states
(Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin) that contribute to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in Michigan.
    Michigan reported 2009 emissions, which show a 28 percent
SO2 reduction from the 2005 base year, a 50 percent
NOX reduction, and an eight percent increase in
NH3 emissions.
    Michigan also included emissions data from EPA's Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) that show reductions in both SO2 and
NOX emissions for each of the three contributing states from
2009 to 2013. For the Isle Royale Class I area, it is evident that the
emission reduction for the top ten impacting point sources combined was
largest for SO2 with a reduction of almost 48,000 tons over
the 2009-13 period. A reduction of NOx for these 10 sources combined
was determined at approximately 8,400 tons. These reductions account
for more than one-third of statewide point source NOX
emissions reductions and over one-half of statewide point source
SO2 reductions for the 2009-2013 period. The source with by
far the largest combined NOX and SO2 reductions
was the DTE Monroe Power Plant with combined NOX/
SO2 reductions of 47,000 tons.
    EPA finds that Michigan properly assessed available information for
significant changes in emissions over the past five years that have
impeded progress in improving visibility. The three contributing states
are still in various stages in assessing emissions for progress
reports. Minnesota's progress report was submitted in December, 2014.
Progress reports for Illinois and Wisconsin had not yet been submitted
as of the date of Michigan's submittal. Thus, Michigan had not
completed the assessment of contributing states' emissions. Still,
Michigan gathered the information it could, and the visibility data
indicates visibility improvement is on-track. Supplementing the
available data, EPA's CAMD data show significant, widespread
SO2 and NOX emission declines have already
occurred. There is no evidence that progress is being impeded.

6. Assessment of Whether the SIP Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient
To Enable Michigan, or Other States, Meet RPGs

    Michigan has implemented, or expects to implement by 2018, all
controls from its approved regional haze plan. Michigan noted in the
progress report that its emissions are on track for the 2018 goals,
including reductions that are ahead of pace for the key visibility-
impairing pollutants, SO2 and NOX. Michigan
expects that the implementation of CSAPR and other Federal programs
will address the reasonable progress obligations of the contributing
states.
    Emission reductions from Michigan sources that help visibility
improvement at Isle Royale and Seney support visibility improvement.
Michigan has achieved greater SO2 emission reductions than
predicted in its regional haze plan.

    EPA finds that Michigan has provided an assessment of the current
strategy, demonstrating that it is sufficient to meet reasonable
progress goals at all Class I areas impacted by Michigan emissions.
Michigan is implementing its controls. The visibility progress at both
Isle Royale and Seney is on track and suggests that Michigan's current
strategy is sufficient to meet its reasonable progress goals.

7. Review of the State's Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    Michigan stated in its progress report that Interagency Monitoring
of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites operate at both Class
I areas, Isle Royale and Seney. Michigan will continue to operate the
IMPROVE network monitors, based on Federal funding. The State has a
contingency plan to use the PM2.5 monitoring network if
needed due to future reductions to the IMPROVE network. Michigan
commits to meeting the reporting requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(iv) for its Class I areas.
    EPA finds that Michigan has met the visibility monitoring strategy
review requirements.
40 CFR 51.308(h) Determination of the Adequacy of Existing
Implementation Plan
    The determination of adequacy for the regional haze plan is
required to be submitted at same time as the progress report. The rule
requires the State to select from four options based on the information
given in the progress report.
    Michigan submitted a negative declaration indicating that further
substantive revision of its regional haze plan is not needed at this
time. Michigan determined that its regional haze plan is adequate to
meet the Regional Haze Rule requirements and expects to achieve the
reasonable progress goals at Isle Royale and Seney.
    EPA finds that the current Michigan regional haze plan is adequate
to achieve its established goals. Michigan is on track to meet the
visibility improvement and emission reduction goals.
Public Participation and Federal Land Manager Consultation
    Michigan provided an opportunity for the public and Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) to review Michigan's progress report by November 18,
2015. Michigan's progress report includes in Appendix B, the FLM's
comments and Michigan's response to those comments. Appendix C includes
the public comments and Michigan's response to those comments.
    Michigan also published notification for a public hearing and
solicitation for full public comment concerning the draft five-year
progress report in widely distributed county publications. No public
hearing was requested.
    EPA finds that Michigan has addressed the applicable requirements
in 51.308(i) regarding FLM consultation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the regional haze progress report submitted on
January 12, 2016, as a revision to the Michigan SIP. We find that
Michigan has satisfied the progress report requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g). We find that Michigan has also met the 40 CFR 51.308(h)
requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze
plan with its negative declaration also submitted on January 12, 2016.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 18,
2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by November 17, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. Public
comments will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do
not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 18,
2017.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 28, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``Regional Haze Progress Report'' to follow the entry titled
``Regional Haze Plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
            provision              nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Progress Report...  Statewide..........       1/12/2016  10/18/2017,
                                                                        [insert Federal
                                                                        Register
                                                                        citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-22510 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31930-31931]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0169]

Entry-Level Driver Training: SBL Truck Driving Academy, Inc.;
Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from SBL
Truck Driving Academy, Inc. (SBL) to exempt two of its current
employees from the theory and behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor
qualification requirements contained in the entry-level driver training
(ELDT) regulations. Specifically, SBL seeks an exemption from the
requirement that instructors have at least 2 years of experience
driving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial
driver's license (CDL) of the same or higher class and/or the same
endorsement necessary to operate the CMV for which training is
provided. FMCSA requests public comment on the applicant's request for
exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2021-0169 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
(FMCSA-2021-0169) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets
Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice DOT/ALL 14-FDMS, which can be reviewed at
https://transportation.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards, FMCSA, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e -mail at
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2021-0169), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number (``FMCSA-2021-0169'') in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for

copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency must
publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with
the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted,
the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The
notice must specify the effective period and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements

    The ELDT regulations, set forth in 49 CFR part 380, subparts F and
G, were implemented on February 7, 2022 established minimum training
standards for individuals applying for certain CDLs and defined
curriculum standards for theory and BTW training. Subpart G of Title 49
of the CFR established an online training provider registry (TPR),
eligibility requirements for providers to be listed on the TPR, and
qualification requirements for instructors. Under 49 CFR 380.713, a
training provider must use instructors who meet the definitions of
``theory instructor'' and ``behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor'' in 49
CFR 380.605, which require that instructors hold a CDL of the same (or
higher) class, with all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for
which training is to be provided, and have either: (1) A minimum of 2
years of experience driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the same or higher
class and/or the same endorsement; or (2) at least 2 years of
experience as a BTW CMV instructor. Exceptions apply to both
definitions.

Applicant's Request

    SBL seeks an exemption from the requirement in 49 CFR 380.713 that
a training provider use instructors who meet the definitions of
``theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605. SBL
specifies that it has two employees who do not have two years of
required driving experience. SBL states that the two employees meet the
qualifications under current State regulations and Federal regulations
in effect before implementation of the ELDT requirements, have class A
CDLs with tanker endorsements, and are medically qualified.
    SBL states that the instructor qualifications required by the ELDT
regulations will have a severe negative impact on its business and on
the driver shortage. SBL requests an exemption that would allow the two
instructors to accumulate two years of experience while continuing to
provide BTW and theory instruction. SBL asserts the exemption would
allow for full instructor staffing, resulting in a ``50% increase of
approximately 96 students annually.'' If the exemption is denied, SBL
states that it would be forced to terminate the employees and replace
them with less qualified individuals.
    SBL also notes that FMCSA has included ``grandfathering''
provisions in the implementation of other new regulations. SBL points
to the provisions in 49 CFR 380.603, which provide that individuals who
obtained a Commercial Learner's Permit (CLP) before February 7, 2022
are not required to comply with the ELDT rule if they obtain a CDL
before the CLP expires. SBL is requesting similar consideration for
State-licensed instructors who met applicable Federal requirements
prior to February 7, 2022.

IV. Equivalent Level of Safety

    To ensure an equivalent level of safety, SBL's application offers a
comprehensive list of the qualifications for the two driver training
instructors for whom they request the exemption. Both individuals meet
the qualifications required prior to implementation of the ELDT rule;
both have Class A CDLs with tanker endorsements; both are medically
qualified; both have graduated from a State-licensed truck driver
training school; both have taught over the road driving; both have
previously trained commercial drivers; one individual worked as a
commercial driver; and both have the ability to instruct all topics
required by the ELDT regulations.
    SBL indicates that the request for the exemption ``places no known
negative safety impact'' and SBL would continue to adhere to all
applicable State and Federal regulations that govern the safe operation
of CMVs. SBL provides the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
requirements for instructors that were in effect prior to
implementation of the ELDT final rule. SBL asserts that both employees
meet those requirements and that South Carolina-licensed schools have
seen no negative safety impacts to date by using instructors with fewer
than 2 years of driving experience.
    A copy of SBL's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

V. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on SBL's application for an
exemption from the requirement in 49 CFR 380.713 to use instructors who
meet the definitions of ``theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in
49 CFR 380.605. All comments received before the close of business on
the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will
be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at
the location listed under the Addresses section of this notice.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the
public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In
addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-11271 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37671-37672]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15367]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0261; FRL-9518-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Refractory Products
Manufacturing (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0261, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0261, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted either electronically or in paper, will be
made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2040.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0515.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2012. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
SSSSS.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15
hours per response. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of refractory
products manufacturing plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 8.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 338.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $35,436, which is comprised of:
$32,396 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $3,040 in
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the estimation
methodology for labor hours or cost to the respondents in this ICR
compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two considerations: (1)
The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) the growth
rate for respondents is very low, negative, or non-existent.
    However, there is an adjustment increase in the total costs to the
respondents and the Agency. The

increase in costs reflects updated labor rates for each of the labor
categories.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-15367 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56983-56984]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket: DOT-OST-2013-0074]

Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review: Foreign
Air Carrier Application for Statement of Authorization

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of the Secretary
(OST).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments; Request OMB Clearance for
extension of a currently approved information collection, Foreign Air
Carrier Application for Statement of Authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, this notice announces that the Information Collection
Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension of approval of currently approved
ICR-2106-0036, Foreign Air Carrier Application for Statement of
Authorization. Earlier, a Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period was published (78 FR 25781, May 2, 2013). The agency did not
receive any comments to its previous notice.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darren Jaffe,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of International Aviation, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W86-441, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Comments: Comments should be sent to OMB at the address that
appears below and should identify the associated OMB Approval Number
2106-0035 and Docket DOT-OST-2013-0074.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Approval No. 2106-0035.
    Title: Foreign Air Carrier Application for Statement of
Authorization.
    Form No.: Form OST 4540.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Foreign Air Carriers.
    Number of Respondents: Approximately 100.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2.25 hours per application.
    Total Annual Burden: 1,000 hours.
    Abstract: Applicants use Form OST 4540 to request statements of
authorization to conduct numerous types of operations authorized under
Title 14, CFR Part 212. The form requires basic information regarding
the carrier(s) conducting the operation, the party filing the form, the
operations being conducted, the number of third- and fourth-freedom
flights conducted in the last twelve-month period, and certification of
reciprocity from the carrier's homeland government. DOT analysts will
use the information collected to determine if applications for fifth-
freedom operations meet the public interest requirements necessary to
authorize such applications.
    Burden Statement: We estimate that the industry-wide total hour
burden for this collection to be approximately 1,000 hours or
approximately 2.25 hours per application. Conservatively, we estimate
the compilation of background information will require 1.75 hours, and
the completion and submission of OST Form 4540 will require thirty (30)
minutes. Reporting the number of third- and fourth-freedom operations
conducted by an applicant carrier will require collection of flight
data, and detailed analysis to determine which flights conducted by the
carrier are third- and fourth-freedom. Applicants should be able to use
data collected for the Department's T-100 program to provide this
information (under this program, carriers are required periodically to
compile and report certain traffic data to the Department, as more
fully described in the Docket referenced in footnote 1 below). The
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) provide carriers with a
computer program that allows them to compile and monitor, among other
things, flight origin and destination data, to be used in making the
carriers' T-100

submissions.\1\ We estimated that carriers will require 1.25 hours per
application\2\ to compile and analyze the data necessary to disclose
the number of third- and fourth-freedom flights conducted within the
twelve-month period preceding the filing of an application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule-making associated with the T-100 program can be
found on the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov, in Docket DOT-OST-1998-4043. Information
regarding burden hours is on file in the Office of Aviation Analysis
(X-50).
    \2\ The Office of Aviation Analysis (X-50) estimated that small-
carriers would require 1 burden hour per report, and large carriers
would require 3 burden hours per report to analyze and report T-100
program data. Considering that the data required in this information
collection can be derived from data already collected, we have taken
an average of the estimated time required, and conservatively
shortened the time by 45 minutes because no new data entry will be
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foreign carriers will also have to provide evidence that their
homeland government will afford reciprocity to U.S. carriers seeking
authority for the similar fifth-, sixth- and seventh-freedom
operations. Carriers may cite certifications submitted by carriers from
the same homeland if that homeland issued such certification within the
preceding six-month period. Approximately 100 carriers from roughly 30
distinct homelands use OST Form 4540 to apply for statements of
authorization annually. We estimate that one foreign carrier from any
given homeland will expend roughly 4 hours every six-months to obtain
certification from its homeland governments.\3\ We have apportioned 30
minutes to each application to account for the time required to obtain
certifications from homeland governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Calculation: (4 burden hours per application) x (30 foreign
homelands) x (2 requests per year) = 240 annual burden hours.
Apportioning 240 annual burden hours equally among an average of 430
applications annually = approximately 30 burden minutes per
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have no empirical data to indicate how much time is required for
a person to complete OST Form 4540; however, anecdotal evidence reveals
that respondents spend thirty (30) minutes or less completing the form
and brief justification. In some cases, respondents spend a limited
amount of time, less than ten (10) minutes, reviewing the form before
sending it via facsimile or email to the Department. In the interest of
providing a conservative estimate so as to not understate the burden
hours, we estimate the hour burden for completing OST Form 4540 as
thirty (30) minutes.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2013.
Patricia Lawton,
DOT PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-22501 Filed 9-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54139-54141]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22224]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 169 / Wednesday, August 31, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0911; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-248-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model
4101 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. 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 door failure mode has been reported by an operator.
    Investigation has shown that the passenger/crew entry door pin-
guide plates can fail prior to the expected fatigue life. A
metallurgical examination of the failed component (lower guide
plate) concluded that the occurred failure was due to exfoliation
corrosion.
    The current inspection regime is not adequate to identify early
stages of this corrosion.
    This condition, if not corrected, can lead to the sudden
depressurisation of the aeroplane and consequently may injure the
occupants.
* * * * *

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 October 17,
2011.

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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE
SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0911;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-248-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 based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2010-0179, dated August 30, 2010 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A door failure mode has been reported by an operator.
    Investigation has shown that the passenger/crew entry door pin-
guide plates can fail prior to the expected fatigue life. A
metallurgical examination of the failed component (lower guide
plate) concluded that the occurred failure was due to exfoliation
corrosion.
    The current inspection regime is not adequate to identify early
stages of this corrosion.
    This condition, if not corrected, can lead to the sudden
depressurisation of the aeroplane and consequently may injure the
occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
immediate and periodic ultrasonic inspections [for a split caused by
exfoliation corrosion] of the door pin guides and the accomplishment
of the relevant corrective actions [replacing the affected
guideplates] as necessary.

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

Relevant Service Information

    BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin J41-
52-064, dated September 15, 2009. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This 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

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $340, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $525, for a cost of
$1,050 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 adding the following new AD:

BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2011-0911;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-248-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 17, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
Model 4101 airplanes; certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52: Doors.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A door failure mode has been reported by an operator.
    Investigation has shown that the passenger/crew entry door pin-
guide plates can fail prior to the expected fatigue life. A
metallurgical examination of the failed component (lower guide
plate) concluded that the occurred failure was due to exfoliation
corrosion.
    The current inspection regime is not adequate to identify early
stages of this corrosion.
    This condition, if not corrected, can lead to the sudden
depressurisation of the aeroplane and consequently may injure the
occupants.
* * * * *

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
ultrasonic inspection of the passenger/crew door upper and lower
guide plates for a split caused by exfoliation corrosion, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-52-064, dated September
15, 2009. Repeat the ultrasonic inspection, thereafter, at intervals
not to exceed 48 Months.
    (h) If a split caused by exfoliation corrosion of an area of
78mm[sup2] (0.12 in.[sup2]) or greater is found during any
ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before
further flight, replace any affected guide plates with a serviceable
guide plate, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-52-064, dated
September 15, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (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.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0179, dated August 30, 2010; and BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited Service Bulletin J41-52-064, dated September
15, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22224 Filed 8-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P