[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56182-56183]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0859; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-090-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed to rescind airworthiness directive (AD) 2008-06-03, which
applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800
and -900 series airplanes; and Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300
series airplanes. The NPRM would have rescinded AD 2008-06-03, which
requires an inspection to determine if certain motor-operated shutoff
valve actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2008-06-03 also
requires revising the Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) section of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate certain AWLs.
Since the NPRM was issued, we have determined that it does not
adequately address the safety concerns. Accordingly, the NPRM is
withdrawn.

DATES: As of September 12, 2013, the proposed rule, which was published
on August 27, 2012 (77 FR 51722), is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: 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 AD action, the proposed rule (77
FR 51722, August 27, 2012), the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document 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: Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6509; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR
13081, March 12, 2008). AD 2008-06-03 applies to the specified
products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2012
(77 FR 51722). The NPRM proposed to rescind AD 2008-06-03, which
requires an inspection to determine if certain motor-operated shutoff
valve actuators for the fuel tanks are installed, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2008-06-03 also
requires revising the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued

Airworthiness to incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21, No. 28-AWL-22, and No.
28-AWL-24 (for Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes); and No. 28-AWL-23, No. 28-AWL-24, and No. 28-AWL-25 (for
Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes). AD 2008-06-
03 resulted from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. The
proposed actions were intended to prevent an unsafe condition from
being introduced on airplanes affected by AD 2008-06-03.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in considering
the proposal (77 FR 51722, August 27, 2012) to rescind AD 2008-03-03,
Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008). The following
presents relevant comments received on the proposal and the FAA's
response to those comments.

Requests To Clarify ``Different Unsafe Condition''

    FedEx, American Airlines, and Boeing requested clarification of the
different unsafe condition introduced by the actions required by AD
2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008). Boeing
also stated that the NPRM (77 FR 51722, August 27, 2012) does not
indicate if the different unsafe condition is applicable to all
actuator locations required by AD 2008-06-03.
    We agree that clarification of the different unsafe condition is
necessary. AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12,
2008), addresses the potential for an electrical current to flow
through certain motor-operated shutoff valve actuators into the fuel
tank. The new motor-operator valve (MOV) actuators are required by AD
2008-06-03 for three locations on Model 737 airplanes and six or seven
locations on Model 757 airplanes (depending on configuration); and that
AD addresses an unsafe condition related to Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'' (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001), Amendment
21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    However, the new motor-operated shutoff valve actuators have been
found to have a risk of latent failure. At two of the locations on
Model 737 airplanes and at three locations on Model 757 airplanes, this
actuator failure could result in a different unsafe condition--i.e., an
inability to shut off fuel flow to an auxiliary power unit (APU) (on
Model 757 airplanes only) or engine during an engine fire. This latent
failure is not a safety risk in the other three to four locations.
    We have determined that AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR
13081, March 12, 2008), should not be rescinded, but should continue to
require actions that address SFAR 88-related safety. Because AD 2008-
06-03 does address a significant safety risk, it is not in the interest
of safety to rescind that AD. For the new MOV actuators, we are
considering further rulemaking to address the certain locations where a
latent failure of the actuator could result in a failure to shut off
fuel flow during an engine fire.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Allegiant Air supported the proposed rescission (77 FR 62833,
August 27, 2012) and requested that, if the FAA decided not to adopt
the rescission, the FAA provide an extension of the compliance time
required by AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415 (73 FR 13081, March 12,
2008), by using a ``global'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC).
Allegiant Air stated that the proposed rescission has brought
uncertainty to operators of the affected Model 737 and 757 airplanes.
We infer the subject of the uncertainty involves an operator still
needing to schedule time to do the required actions prior to the
compliance time required in AD 2008-06-03.
    We disagree. We have not received any AMOC requests to extend the
compliance time. We also have not received justification to extend an
AMOC to all the airplanes affected by AD 2008-06-03, Amendment 39-15415
(73 FR 13081, March 12, 2008). However, under the provisions of
paragraph (i) of AD 2008-06-03, we will consider individual operator
requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if
sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance
time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have determined
that no change to AD 2008-06-03 is necessary.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the NPRM (77 FR
51722, August 27, 2012) does not adequately address the safety concern.
Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (77 FR 51722, August 27, 2012) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another related action nor commit the FAA
to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (77 FR 51722, August 27,
2012), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not
covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Withdrawal
    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2012-0859,
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-090-AD, which was published in the
Federal Register on August 27, 2012 (77 FR 51722).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 5, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22187 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


ICR SUPPORTING STATEMENT:  Part B

Auto Body Compliance Assessment Pilot Project

Part B applies only to the Pilot project; methodologies described here
will not apply to surveys used for anecdotal purposes in support of the
CRC activities.

Survey Objectives, Key Variables, and Other Preliminaries

Survey Objectives

The purpose of the pilot study is to evaluate whether and how EPA’s
specific compliance assistance activities in Region 1 helped owners or
operators of auto body shops improve their operations with respect to
Subpart HHHHHH National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area
Sources (NESHAP Subpart HHHHHH, hereinafter referred to as the Surface
Coating Rule.).  Specifically, the study has been designed to assess
whether or not the assistance provided helped owners or operators
understand these and other applicable environmental regulations, and
whether or not the assistance helped owners or operators implement
operational changes that improved environmental practices; including
changes in behavior that resulted in the auto body shop either returning
to compliance with regulations or taking steps toward achieving
compliance.

The questions contained in the surveys are designed to obtain
information on (1) environmental performance related to current
hazardous waste management and training requirements under RCRA, (2)
environmental performance related to air emissions control requirements
associated with the recently promulgated Surface Coating Rule, (3)
environmental compliance assistance received by government agencies or
other entities, and (4) perceptions regarding the factors that influence
shop behaviors related to environmental performance.  Some of these
behaviors are related to current regulatory requirements, while others
will be required in the future or are purely voluntary.   Survey-based
measurements related to these behaviors will be referred to in this
document as measures of “environmental performance.”  In addition,
the survey will collect information on the type of compliance assistance
received, i.e., the extent to which the shop has been affected by
outreach, site visits, or other types of assistance from EPA or others.

There are two objectives in collecting this information:

The primary objective is to assess the degree to which EPA’s
compliance assistance activities lead to, or are associated with,
improvements in environmental performance at auto body shops.

A secondary objective of the survey is to assess the validity of
information about environmental performance data collected through
telephone surveys.  EPA typically uses telephone surveys to gather
information about environmental performance; however OMB has expressed
concerns that such data is subject to potential self-reporting and
non-response bias.  The current survey will involve on-site data
collection designed to verify telephone responses and evaluate potential
non-responses bias.

Key Variables:

The key variables in the survey involve shops’ environmental
performance related to employee training, air pollutants (specifically
addressing requirements of the Surface Coating Rule), RCRA generator and
waste determination requirements, emergency procedures, and the type of
compliance assurance received by shops.

Key variables related to employee training are as follows:

Whether the shop has a training program focused on proper hazardous
waste management procedures, and whether these training records are
available.

Whether spray technicians have been properly trained, and whether these
training records are available.

Key variables related to air emissions are as follows:

Type of spray guns used to apply coatings.

Manufacturer of spray guns.

Configuration of area where spray coatings are applied (e.g., whether
spray coatings are applied in an enclosed, ventilated spray booth, and
how long this booth has been in operation).

Capture efficiency of booth exhaust system for area where spray coatings
are applied.

Whether particle filter is used on spray booth exhaust and condition of
filter.

Configuration of paint mixing room (e.g., whether mixing rooms are
enclosed and ventilated, and how long they have been in operation).

Configuration of prep station for spray coating (e.g., whether prep
stations are enclosed and ventilated, and how long they have been in
operation).

Methods used for cleaning spray guns, and how long these methods have
been in use.

Whether the shop uses waterborne paints, and for what purposes.

Amounts of different types of coatings applied in the shop each week.

Primary supplier of paint coating products.

Whether shop has MSDS and coating formulation data for solvents and
coatings, and whether this documentation is available.

Whether coatings used by the shop contain chromium, lead, cadmium,
nickel, or manganese.

Whether paint stripping products used by the shop contain methylene
chloride, and whether shop has minimization plan for methylene chloride.

Whether the respondent is aware of the Surface Coating Rule, and if so,
when and how the shop first heard of these requirements.

Key variables related to RCRA requirements are as follows:

How much hazardous waste the shop generates.

Whether all hazardous waste streams have been identified.

Whether hazardous wastes are properly labeled and stored in an
appropriate manner.

Whether hazardous wastes are shipped to an appropriate off-site
facility.

Key variables related to emergency procedures are as follows:

Whether the shop has implemented emergency procedures.

Whether documentation related to emergency procedures is available.

	Key variables related to the type of compliance assurance are as
follows:

Sources of information about how to comply with federal and state
environmental regulations (e.g., trade associations, paint
manufacturers, regulatory agencies, etc.).

Whether shop has been visited by a government environmental official
within the last six months, and type of government official that
visited.

Whether shop has made any changes in its operations in the last year,
and if so, what changed and why.

Sampling Approach:

The survey will involve a probability sample of auto body shops.  As
described in detail in Section B.2, the probability sample will be taken
within the context of a study designed to evaluate the impact of
compliance assistance on environmental performance. The Agency chose not
to conduct a census due to the prohibitive costs and the unnecessary
burden that would be imposed on auto body shops.  The Agency has
concluded that its information needs can be met through a probability
sample and that the sampling error will not compromise the objectives of
the survey.  Section B.2.c provides additional information about
precision.

The survey is being designed and conducted with the assistance of a
contractor:

Contractor	Contractor Roles

Industrial Economics, Incorporated

2067 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02140	Study design

Questionnaire development

Statistical sample design

Random assignment

Database design

Feasibility:

The Agency believes it has developed a strong study design that will
meet the objectives described above.  The survey and overall study
design is the result of a two-year collaborative effort involving an
Agency inter-office workgroup; consultants with expertise in program
evaluation, survey design, and statistics; and independent peer
reviewers.  The Agency has allocated sufficient funds to complete the
survey effort, and the data will be available within a timeframe that is
acceptable to users within the Agency.

The risk of failure has been minimized through the collection of
multiple types of data.  As discussed in the next section, the study
involves two different approaches to policy evaluation (random
assignment experiment and comparison group design) and two different
data collection modes (telephone and on-site surveys).  Furthermore, the
survey will gather data on many different measures of environmental
performance.

The data collection approach has been designed to minimize the impact of
non-response and self-reporting bias.  In order to address these
potential sources of bias in the telephone survey, the data collection
effort incorporates (1) on-site follow-ups with telephone respondents
and non-respondents and (2) on-site verification of self-reported
environmental performance.  The Agency expects minimal non-response bias
in the on-site component of the survey effort, as past site visit
cooperation rates have been near one hundred percent.

The Agency does foresee a potential risk related to the type and
quantity of compliance assistance received by the comparison group in
the long-term component of the study.  As we discuss below, our approach
to assessing the long-term impact of compliance assistance requires a
comparison group that receives limited, if any, compliance assistance
from the Agency.  However, the Agency cannot control compliance
assistance provided by states, local governments, private vendors, or
trade associations.  If these groups replace EPA compliance assistance
with substantial compliance assistance efforts of their own, the
long-term study may be compromised.

Survey Design

This section contains a detailed description of the survey design,
including a description of the target population, sampling frame, sample
size, stratification variables, sampling methods, precision targets,
non-sampling error, and questionnaire design.  The section begins with
an overview of the study design, as the survey is best viewed within the
overall context of the policy evaluation.  The schedule for the various
components of the study is depicted graphically in Appendix A.

Short-Term Experiment: Impact of Compliance Assistance Outreach and
Workshops

The short-term impact of compliance assistance outreach and workshops
will be evaluated through a random-assignment experiment involving auto
body shops in risk-based clusters of Massachusetts communities.  The
auto body shops will be randomly assigned to either a treatment group
(hereafter, Group A) or a control group (hereafter, Group B) (Exhibit
B-1).  The shops in the treatment group will receive (1) a multimedia
guidebook providing a summary of air, water, and RCRA requirements
impacting auto body shops in Massachusetts, (2) a brochure summarizing
the Surface Coating Rule requirements, (3) an invitation to attend
workshops covering the requirements of the Surface Coating Rule, and (4)
a copy of the presentation slides that will be used at the workshops.
EPA anticipates that a total of approximately 50-100 shops will
participate in the workshops.  The shops in the comparison group will
not receive the mailings, and they will not be invited to the workshops.

Shortly after the workshops have been completed, EPA personnel will
assess environmental performance through a combination of telephone
interviews and on-site visits with probability samples of shops from
each of the two groups.  The impact of compliance assistance will be
assessed by comparing the estimated environmental performance for Group
A to the estimated environmental performance for Group B.

Exhibit B-1:  Assessing Short-Term Impact of Compliance Assistance
Outreach and Workshops

Assessing the Validity of Telephone Surveys

The validity of telephone survey responses will be evaluated by using a
two-phase sampling approach to assess environmental performance in the
short-term experiment (Cochran, 1977, pp. 327-355) (Exhibit B-2).  In
the first phase, EPA will measure performance through a telephone survey
with a sample of shops.  In the second phase, site visits will be
conducted with samples of telephone survey respondents and
nonrespondents.  The site visits will determine shop environmental
performance through direct observation and a review of on-site records.
Site visits at respondent shops will allow us to adjust for any
potential self-reporting bias in the telephone survey, while site visits
at non-respondent shops will allow us to adjust for any potential
non-response bias.  By comparing performance levels estimated using data
from this two-phase approach (combining data from the telephone survey
with data from follow-up site visits) with performance levels estimated
using data from the telephone survey alone (excluding the site visit
data), the bias resulting from relying entirely on telephone survey
responses can be determined.

In addition, we anticipate that the supplemental information obtained
through the telephone survey will improve the precision of our
performance estimate relative to estimates derived from site visits
alone.  If the performance estimates from this two-phase sampling
approach provide substantial precision gains relative to the performance
estimates obtained from site visits alone, the Agency will consider
using the two-phase approach in the 2011 component of the long-term
study.

Exhibit B-2:  Schematic for Assessing the Validity of Telephone Surveys

Long-Term Study: Impact of Compliance Assistance Package

The long-term impact of a more comprehensive compliance assistance
package will be evaluated through a comparison group design involving
auto body shops in risk-based clusters of Massachusetts communities
(hereafter, Group C) and a similar population of auto body shops in a
comparison location (hereafter, Group X).  By “long-term” impact, we
are referring to the cumulative impacts of a package of compliance
assistance activities provided over approximately two years.  The
post-treatment measurement for assessing long-term impacts will occur at
a point in time when the Surface Coating Rule requirements are in
effect.

The shops in Group C will be offered a full suite of compliance
assistance activities related to RCRA and surface coating requirements,
including outreach, workshops, and site visits:

Outreach: All shops will receive a multimedia guidebook providing a
summary of air, water, and RCRA requirements impacting auto body shops
in Massachusetts; a brochure summarizing the Surface Coating Rule
requirements; and a copy of the presentation slides that will be used at
the workshops.

Workshops: All shops will be offered an opportunity to participate in
compliance assistance workshops led by EPA personnel.

Site Visits: Eighty randomly selected shops will be offered compliance
assistance through site visits by EPA personnel in 2009.  The purpose of
these 2009 site visits is two-fold: they will be used to assess
environmental performance and, after the on-site interview has been
completed, they will be used to deliver compliance assistance based on
interviewer observations.  An additional 60 shops will receive
compliance assistance visits in 2010; most will be randomly selected,
but some shops may request a site visit after hearing about workshops or
site visits at neighboring shops.

The shops in Group X will receive limited, if any, compliance assistance
from EPA or state environmental assistance programs regarding RCRA
requirements or the Surface Coating Rule.

In each of the two locations, site visits by qualified personnel at
random samples of shops will be used to estimate performance before and
after compliance assistance has been provided.  This will result in four
separate estimates of performance:

Group C 2009 Pre-treatment

Group C 2011 Post-treatment

Group X 2009

Group X 2011

The impact of compliance assistance will be assessed by comparing the
change in performance in Group C with the change in performance in Group
X.  (See Exhibit B-3)  (i.e., through a “difference-in-differences”
approach, see Bloom, 2005, pg. 179).

Exhibit B-3:  Schematic for Assessing Long-Term Impact of Compliance
Assistance Package

Target Population and Coverage:

The population of interest for the pilot study is auto body shops
located in risk-based clusters of communities in Massachusetts and Group
X that are subject to the recently promulgated Surface Coating Rule.
Auto body shops are subject to the Surface Coating Rule if they are paid
to complete at least two surface coatings each year on vehicles or
pieces of mobile equipment.

Risk-based clusters are characterized as groups of geographically
contiguous communities, each centered around a core urban area, that
have elevated cancer and non-cancer risks from air pollution according
to National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) data.  The Agency has chosen to
focus on risk-based clusters of communities in this study because we
believe that the need for auto body compliance assistance may be greater
in these communities, given elevated risks to residents from other
sources.

The Agency is currently considering two potential locations for Group X:
Oklahoma and the Tidewater area of Virginia.  The characteristics of
these locations are being evaluated, and the comparison location will be
selected prior to beginning the study.  The evaluation criteria used in
selecting Group X include:

number of shops located in risk-based clusters;

characteristics of risk-based clusters compared to risk-based clusters
in Massachusetts;

state regulations related to RCRA and air emissions; and

expected compliance assistance from EPA, state, or other entities.

At the conclusion of the study, EPA will use additional data gathered in
the survey to assess the adequacy of Group X as a comparison group and
to identify any compliance assistance received by Group X shops.

Sample Design:

2 (b) (i) Sampling Frame

The sampling frame for the survey is auto body shops located in
risk-based clusters in Massachusetts and Oklahoma/Virginia.  Auto body
shops are defined as businesses with Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) 7532 – “Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and
Maintenance” – that are listed in either Dunn & Bradstreet or
Reference USA.  SIC 7532 comprises establishments primarily engaged in
repairing or customizing automotive vehicles, such as passenger cars,
trucks, and vans, and all trailer bodies and interiors; and/or painting
automotive vehicles and trailer bodies.  The risk-based clusters
centered in Worcester, MA, Lawrence, MA and Boston, MA were excluded
from the sampling frame because for each of these communities aggressive
assistance outreach and or enforcement activities had been conducted for
a number of years (Lawrence and Boston) or being planned (Worcester) at
the local or federal levels.

2 (b) (ii) Sample Size

The proposed sample sizes for the study are provided in Table B-1.  In
the short-term experiment we will select 400 shops for the telephone
survey and 80 shops for the on-site survey.  In the long-term study, we
will select an additional 160 shops for the on-site survey: 40 shops in
2009 and 120 shops in 2011.  Sample sizes were determined by weighing
expected costs against expected precision gains from larger samples (see
Section B.2.c.i).  In addition, an effort was made to balance total
on-site survey effort between the two survey years.  If resources allow,
the agency plans to double the sample sizes for the on-site survey.

The Agency is planning to conduct an interim telephone survey with 200
Group C shops in 2010 to gauge the progress of auto body shops toward
achieving compliance with the new Surface Coating Rule requirements.
This interim telephone survey will help the Agency determine whether
additional outreach activities (e.g., additional mailings, workshops, or
site visits) may be needed prior to the 2011 compliance date.

Although the Agency currently does not plan to conduct telephone surveys
in 2011, telephone surveys will be added in 2011 if the two-phase
sampling approach substantially increases the precision of the
environmental performance estimates substantially without adding undo
complexity to the study.  If telephone surveys are conducted in 2011,
the sample sizes will be 200 in each state, for a total of 400
additional shops.  The Agency does not propose to conduct a phone survey
in Group X in 2009 due to potential measurement effects (i.e., the phone
survey itself could act as a form of compliance assistance, which would
bias results from this comparison group at the baseline measurement.)

Table B-1: Summary of Sample Sizes

Shops Sampled	Sample Size for Telephone Survey	Sample Size for On-Site
Survey

Group A 2009	200	40

Group B 2009 a	200	40

Group X 2009	0	40

Group C 2010	100	0

Group C 2011	0b	60

Group X 2011	0b	60

Notes:

a Group B serves two purposes: it is the control group for the
short-term experiment, and it provides the pre-treatment estimate of
Group C environmental performance for the long-term experiment.

b As discussed in the text, telephone surveys may be conducted in 2011
if the two-phase sampling approach is successful in 2009.

2 (b) (iii) Stratification Variables

Sampling for the telephone and site-visit surveys in Groups A and C will
be stratified (using proportional allocation) by receipt of face-to-face
compliance assistance.  The face-to-face compliance assistance stratum
is defined as all shops that either attended an EPA workshop or received
an EPA compliance assistance site visit as part of this effort.  This
stratification will ensure that both types of shops (i.e., those that
receive face-to-face assistance and those that do not) will be included
in the sample.  The size of the strata will be unknown until compliance
assistance has been provided.

In addition, the two-phase sampling approach used in Groups A and B will
involve stratification in the second sampling phase.  That is, the shops
sampled for the telephone survey will be stratified into telephone
respondents and telephone non-respondents for the on-site survey.   This
stratification into respondents and non-respondents will ensure that
shops from both groups will be sampled for the on-site survey, ensuring
that the Agency will be able to assess potential self-reporting bias and
potential non-response bias in the telephone survey.   Once again, the
Agency expects to use proportional stratification in allocating the
sample among the strata. (Exhibit B-4 illustrates the implementation of
both stratification approaches within Group A.)

Exhibit B-4:  Stratified Sampling Approach for Group A

(Includes all Shops Invited to Attend Workshops)

2 (b) (iv) Sampling Method

The sampling method for Group X in 2009 and 2011 will be simple random
sampling from the population of shops.  In order to minimize potential
measurement effects associated with the 2009 interviews, the 2009 sample
will be excluded from the sampling frame prior to drawing the sample for
2011.

The sampling method for Group C in 2011 will be random sampling
stratified by receipt of face-to-face compliance assistance, with simple
random sampling used within each stratum.

The sampling method for Groups A and B in 2009 will be somewhat more
complex.  In Group A, the survey will be completed in two phases (see
Exhibit B-4).  In the first phase, a stratified random sample of 200
shops will be selected for the telephone survey.  There will be two
strata for the telephone survey: shops that attended a workshop and
shops that did not.  In the second phase, site visits will be conducted
at a stratified random sample of 40 shops selected for the telephone
survey.  Thus, the second phase will involve four distinct strata,
defined by workshop attendance/non-attendance and response/non-response
to the telephone survey.

In Group B, the survey will also be completed in two phases.  However,
as none of the Group B shops will have attended workshops prior to the
telephone survey, a simple random sample of 200 shops will be selected
for the telephone survey in Group B.  Site visits will then be conducted
at a stratified random sample of 40 of the shops selected for the
telephone survey, with shops stratified by response/non-response to the
telephone survey.

2 (b) (v.) Multi-Stage Sampling

Multi-stage sampling will not be used in the study.

Precision Requirements:

2 (c) (i) Precision Targets

To satisfy EPA’s decision-making needs, the study has been designed to
provide a minimum detectable effect (MDE) not exceeding 29 percentage
points for binary measures of shop performance for the long-term
evaluation and a MDE not exceeding 22 percentage points for the
short-term evaluation.  The MDEs are calculated using a 10 percent
significance level, a one-sided hypothesis test, a power level of 80
percent, assumed population sizes of 600 in each group, and an
assumption of no improvements in precision through the use of
regressors.   In addition, MDE depends on shop environmental
performance, telephone survey response rate, and the degree of agreement
between the telephone and on-site measurements.  The Agency believes
that the telephone survey response rate will likely be between 20% and
40%, while the degree of agreement between telephone and on-site
measurements will likely be between 80% and 95%.  As the performance
rate will vary across the various measures of performance, we use 50%,
70%, and 90% in our calculations.  Under these assumptions, the MDE for
the short-term experiment ranges from 13% to 22%, while the MDE for the
long-term comparison ranges from 17% to 29% (Tables B-2 and B-3).

Table B-2: Minimum Detectable Effect for Short-Term Experiment

Agreement between Telephone and On-Site Measurement	Performance = 50%
Performance = 70%	Performance = 90%

	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%
RR =  30%	RR =  40%

80%	22.4%	22.0%	21.7%	20.8%	20.6%	20.4%	n/a	n/a	n/a

85%	22.1	21.7	21.2	20.5	20.2	19.8	n/a	n/a	n/a

90%	21.8	21.2	20.5	20.2	19.6	19.1	13.9%	13.9%	13.9%

95%	21.5	20.7	19.8	19.8	19.1	18.3	13.3	13.0	12.8%

Notes:

RR = telephone survey response rate

Performance = environmental performance rate

Table B-3: Minimum Detectable Effect for Long-Term Comparison

Agreement between Telephone and On-Site Measurement	Performance = 50%
Performance = 70%	Performance = 90%

	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%
RR =  30%	RR =  40%

80%	29.2%	29.1%	28.9%	26.8%	26.8%	26.7%	n/a	n/a	n/a

85%	29.1	28.9	28.7	26.7	26.6	26.5	n/a	n/a	n/a

90%	29.0	28.7	28.5	26.6	26.4	26.2	17.7%	17.7%	17.7%

95%	28.9	28.5	28.2	26.5	26.2	25.9	17.5	17.4	17.3%

Notes:

RR = telephone survey response rate

Performance = environmental performance rate

The Agency is currently exploring the possibility of doubling the
on-site sample sizes for the study.  The MDEs associated with doubling
on-site sample sizes are presented in Tables B-4 and B-5.  The MDE for
the short-term experiment ranges from 9% to 15%, while the MDE for the
long-term comparison ranges from 12% to 20%.

Table B-4: Minimum Detectable Effect for

Short-Term Comparison with On-Site Sample Sizes Doubled

Agreement between Telephone and On-Site Measurement	Performance = 50%
Performance = 70%	Performance = 90%

	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%
RR =  30%	RR =  40%

80%	15.4%	15.3%	15.1%	14.3%	14.2%	14.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a

85%	15.3	15.1	14.8	14.1	14.0	13.8	n/a	n/a	n/a

90%	15.1	14.8	14.5	13.9	13.7	13.4	9.5%	9.5%	9.5%

95%	14.9	14.5	14.1	13.7	13.4	13.0	9.2	9.1	8.9

Notes:

RR = telephone survey response rate

Performance = environmental performance rate

Table B-5: Minimum Detectable Effect for

Long-Term Comparison with On-Site Sample Sizes Doubled

Agreement between Telephone and On-Site Measurement	Performance = 50%
Performance = 70%	Performance = 90%

	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%	RR =  30%	RR =  40%	RR =  20%
RR =  30%	RR =  40%

80%	19.8%	19.7%	19.6%	18.2%	18.1%	18.1%	n/a	n/a	n/a

85%	19.7	19.6	19.5	18.1	18.0	18.0	n/a	n/a	n/a

90%	19.6	19.5	19.4	18.0	17.9	17.8	11.9%	12.0%	12.0%

95%	19.6	19.4	19.3	17.9	17.8	17.7	11.8	11.8	11.7

Notes:

RR = telephone survey response rate

Performance = environmental performance rate

2 (c) (ii) Non-Sampling Error

The Agency will use several quality assurance techniques to maximize
response rates, response accuracy, and processing accuracy to minimize
nonsampling error:

The study relies heavily on data collected through on-site surveys, with
many of the key measurements being obtained directly through interviewer
observations rather than through survey questions.  This will minimize
measurement error, eliminate self-reporting bias, and reduce
non-response bias.

To maximize response in on-site surveys, selected shops will be visited
during normal business hours, and shops will be able to reschedule the
interview if the interviewer arrives at an inconvenient time.  In the
past, EPA has obtained response rates near 100% during these type of
facility visits.

To maximize response in telephone surveys, initial contacts will be
attempted shortly after shops open for business, as personnel are
typically busiest from mid-morning to late afternoon.  If the shop
indicates that the time is not convenient, the interview will be
rescheduled.  If the shop does not answer the telephone, at least three
additional callbacks will be attempted on different days and at
different times.

When telephone surveys are used, the Agency will verify telephone
measurements through follow-up site visits with samples of telephone
respondents and non-respondents, allowing the Agency to address any
potential self-reporting bias and non-response bias.

To minimize measurement error and interviewer bias, on-site interviewers
will follow objective, written protocols in collecting data on shop
environmental performance.  In addition, the questions have been
organized to mimic a typical shop walk-through, thus minimizing the time
required to collect the necessary data elements.

The data collection instruments have been thoroughly reviewed by
numerous survey experts.  A pre-test has been conducted, as discussed in
section B.3.

Standardized software will be used for sample selection.

Data will be 100 percent independently keyed and verified.

Questionnaire Design:

The questions contained in the surveys are designed to obtain
information on (1) environmental performance related to current
hazardous waste management and training requirements under RCRA, (2)
environmental performance related to air emissions control requirements
associated with the recently promulgated Surface Coating Rule, (3)
environmental compliance assistance received by government agencies or
other entities, and (4) perceptions regarding the factors that influence
shop behaviors related to environmental performance.  Most of the
questions are designed to produce binary (i.e., yes/no) indicators of
environmental performance for use as dependent variables in the
statistical analysis.

There are two different questionnaires, one for the on-site survey and
one for the telephone survey.  The on-site survey is designed to be
consistent with the general flow of a shop walk-through, with the
interviewer obtaining data on environmental performance through his or
her own observations and through targeted questions of shop personnel.
The telephone survey focuses on a subset of the data items that are
included in the on-site survey, as the survey needs to be relatively
brief to discourage hang-ups.  The telephone survey focuses mainly on
environmental performance measures that can be later verified
independently through interviewer observations on site.

Both questionnaires were reviewed by survey experts at Industrial
Economics and Abt Associates, and by EPA experts in program evaluation,
program review, statistics, and survey design. Copies of the survey
instruments are attached in Appendices B and C.

3. 	Pretests and Pilot Tests

The survey instrument was pretested on auto body shops in Boston,
Massachusetts, which is not included in the sampling frame for the
proposed survey. Several of the questions from the two survey modes are
identical, so the pretest was limited to a total of nine shops across
the two modes: the on-site survey was pretested on five shops, while the
telephone instrument was pretested on four shops.  The five shops used
to pretest the on-site survey were selected from a list provided by the
Boston Public Health Commission.  The four shops used in the phone
survey pretest were selected from a list derived from Dunn & Bradstreet
and Reference USA (SIC 7532).  The selected shops provide a range of
operation sizes (from “mom-and-pop” shops to national chains) and
locations within the city.  After the pretest, the survey instruments
and instructions were revised to address pretest observations regarding
question wording, clarity of interviewer instructions, question flow,
and survey length.

No pilot tests are planned for the survey.

4.	Collection Methods and Follow-Up

Collection Methods:

A combination of site visits and telephone surveys will be used to
collect data from the sampled auto body shops.  Site visits that combine
survey questions with interviewer observations will be the primary data
collection approach.  This approach was selected by the Agency because
it avoids potential self-reporting bias and the response rate for site
visits is expected to be extremely high.  Interviewers for the site
visits will be Agency employees for Group C , and EPA-trained
contractors for Group X.  These interviewers will follow a written set
of procedures during all site visits, and they will be trained in the
collection of environmental performance data from auto body shops.

Due to high costs associated with site visits, the Agency prefers as a
general matter, to rely on telephone surveys in collecting environmental
performance data for its national compliance assistance activities.
Thus, a subset of the on-site surveys will be preceded by telephone
surveys as part of an evaluation of the reliability of environmental
performance data collected through telephone surveys.

Survey Response and Follow-up:

The target response rate for the on-site survey is 95 percent,
calculated as completed interviews divided by eligible shops sampled.
Past experience by the Agency with site visits at auto body shops
indicates that surveyors are rarely denied entry, and the non-response
rate is expected to be nearly non-existent.  Shops will be allowed to
reschedule the site visit if the interviewer arrives at an inconvenient
time.

The target response rate for the telephone survey is between 20 and 40
percent, calculated as completed interviews divided by eligible shops
sampled.  (Although the target response rate is somewhat low, the study
will evaluate non-response bias by conducting follow-up site visits at a
sample of non-respondent shops.)  Up to three attempts will be made to
reach each sampled shop.  If an answering machine picks up during the
first attempt, the interviewer will call again within the next day or
two.  If the second attempt is unsuccessful, the interviewer will leave
a message.  If the respondent does not return the call within two days,
the interviewer will attempt a third and final call.  As with the site
visits, shops will be able to reschedule the telephone interview for a
more convenient time.  In addition, if no one at the shop speaks
English, an attempt will be made to have an interviewer who speaks the
preferred language contact the shop.

5. 	Analyzing and Reporting Survey Results

Data Preparation:

The Agency will use 100% double-keyed data entry for all survey data.
Data will be entered into a Microsoft Access database.  Editing will
consist of automated logic and range checks, and checks for missing
data.  Missing environmental performance data will not be imputed and
will result in sample size reductions for the relevant analyses.
Missing data on covariates will be imputed using standard methods such
as means and regression.

Analysis:

This section describes the three general types of quantitative analyses
that will be conducted to evaluate (1) the short-term impact of
compliance assistance, (2) the long-term impact of compliance
assistance, and (3) the validity of telephone surveys.  In addition to
these three quantitative analyses, the Agency will analyze responses to
qualitative survey questions focused on respondents’ perceptions of
the factors that influence behaviors related to environmental
performance.  The results of the analyses will be relevant for the
population of auto body shops located in risk-based clusters in
Massachusetts; the Agency does not intend to use the results of the
pilot study to draw conclusions about the compliance assistance program
as a whole.

Short-Term Impact of Compliance Assistance Outreach and Workshops

The short-term impact of compliance assistance will be estimated as the
difference in performance between Groups A and B.  Depending upon the
type of variable, group performance will be described either as a
proportion (for binary variables, such as whether or not the shop is
using appropriate spray booths for painting) or as a mean (for
continuous variables, such as the number of gallons of paint a shop uses
per month).

We will use two different approaches to estimate this difference.  The
first approach will involve a simple comparison of the two-phase
performance estimate for Group A to the two-phase performance estimate
for Group B.  This approach allows us to take advantage of any precision
gains provided by the application of the two-phase approach.  For any
given group, the two-phase estimate of performance is given by:

where:

r	= effective sample size for telephone survey

n	= initial sample size for the telephone survey

 	= average performance for respondent shops (telephone measurement)

 	= average performance for sample of respondent shops (site visit
measurement)

 	= average performance for sample of respondent shops (telephone
measurement)

 	= average performance for sample of nonrespondent shops (site visit
measurement)

Group A will be stratified by receipt of face-to-face compliance
assistance.  As a result, for Group A, we will need to develop separate
two-phase estimates of performance for each stratum, then estimate the
overall performance for Group A as the weighted sum of these two
performance estimates, where the weights are equal to the proportion of
the population represented by each stratum.

The second approach will involve estimating the difference within the
context of a multivariate regression, with variables included to control
for factors that EPA anticipates may impact performance.  Examples of
such factors include shop size (e.g., number of paint jobs per week),
number of years in operation, and geographic location.  For example, for
performance measures that are continuous, the site visit results will be
used to estimate the following type of model:

where

 	= performance measure for shop i

 	= a constant

 	= a binary (0/1) variable equal to one if the shop is in the treatment
group (Group A) and equal to zero otherwise

 	= a binary (0/1) variable equal to one if the shop attended a workshop
and equal to zero otherwise.

 	= a set of J shop characteristics expected to impact performance

 	= a random error term representing the effect of unknown shop
characteristics that may impact performance

 , where f is the fraction of shops in Group A that attended a workshop.

Long-Term Impact of Compliance Assistance Package

The impact of Region 1’s two-year compliance assistance effort
(outreach, workshops, and shop visits) will be estimated as the
difference between 1) the change in performance for Group C and 2) the
change in performance for Group X.   We will use two different
approaches to estimate this difference.  The first approach will involve
a simple comparison of the change in performance for Group C to the
change in performance for Group X.

The second approach will involve estimating the difference within the
context of a multivariate regression, with variables included to control
for other observable factors that EPA anticipates may impact
performance.  For example, for performance measures that are continuous,
the analysis of compliance assistance impacts will involve estimating
models of the following form:

where

 	= performance measure for shop i

 	= a binary (0/1) variable equal to one if the measurement is from the
treatment group in 2009 and equal to zero otherwise

 	= a binary variable equal to one if the measurement is from the
treatment group in 2011 and equal to zero otherwise

 	= a binary variable equal to one if the measurement is from the
comparison group in 2009 and equal to zero otherwise

 	= a binary variable equal to one if the measurement is from the
comparison group in 2011 and equal to zero otherwise

 	= a set of J shop characteristics expected to impact performance
(e.g., size of shop, number of years in operation, or geographic
location)

 	= a random error term representing the effect of unknown shop
characteristics that may impact performance

   have analogous interpretations.  The regression-adjusted
difference-in-differences estimator of the long-term impact of
compliance assistance is given by:

Assessing Telephone Survey Bias

 ):

 ),

The performance for non-respondents is estimated as the performance rate
for the on-site visits with non-respondents.  The performance for
respondents is estimated by adjusting the overall average performance
rate from the telephone survey.  The adjustment is calculated from the
subsample of telephone survey respondents that also received site
visits, and it is equal to the difference between the average
performance rate as measured by the telephone survey and the average
performance rate as measured on-site.

Reporting Results:

A report containing the questionnaire, sampling plan, calculations, and
results (including variances and response rates) will be prepared.  The
report will be made available to the Agency and the public through the
following means:

A printed report, which will be distributed to all interested offices at
EPA. Compliance assistance providers from EPA and other organizations
will be alerted to the report via available electronic means (e.g.
listservs). Additional copies will be made available to the general
public through the National Technical Information System (NTIS)

An electronic copy of the report will be posted to EPA’s Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Website (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance"
www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance ), and other Agency websites will link
to the report (e.g., Region 1, OAQPS).

EPA will provide OMB with a copy of the final report, as part of its
continuing commitment to “conduct a survey every three years of a
statistically-valid sample of compliance assistance recipients to
measure behavior changes resulting from compliance assistance.”

REEFERENCES

Bloom, Howard S. Learning More from Social Experiments: Evolving
Analytic Approaches. Russell Sage Foundation. 2005.

Cochran, William G. Sampling Techniques (3rd Edition), John Wiley &
Sons. New York:. 1977.

Orr, Larry L. Social Experiments: Evaluating Public Programs with
Experimental Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1999.

 These workshops will be organized by EPA together with local partners
(e.g., fire departments), and they will vary in content, duration, and
location.  However, at least one hour of all workshops will be dedicated
to presenting the new requirements associated with the Surface Coating
Rule.  A standard PowerPoint presentation will be used to cover material
related to the Surface Coating Rule.

 Workshops and mailings will be provided to the control group shops
shortly after the survey described above has been completed to ensure
that all shops ultimately have the opportunity to receive compliance
assistance.  If any shops in the control group learn about the earlier
series of workshops and indicate to EPA that they would like to
participate, they will be encouraged to attend workshops at a later
date.  If they insist on attending the earlier series of workshops, they
will be allowed to do so and tracked as “crossovers” for the
analysis (see, e.g., Orr 1999, pg 211-213).  We anticipate that only a
small number of shops, if any, will insist on attending the earlier
series of workshops.

 Group C is a combination of Groups A and B from the short-term
evaluation.  After the conclusion of the short-term experiment, the
shops in Group B will receive outreach materials and an offer to attend
a workshop identical to the workshops that were initially offered only
to Group A.  This will make Groups A and B equivalent with respect to
compliance assistance received, making the distinction between the two
groups irrelevant for the long-term experiment.

 Compliance assistance will be delayed by approximately three months for
a subset of the Group C shops (i.e., until the end of the short-term
experiment).

 Compliance assistance site visits will consist of a post-survey
“debrief” with the shop representative to review areas where
environmental performance could potentially be improved, including areas
related to the Surface Coating Rule requirements.  In addition, the
interviewer will provide the shop representative with (1) a guidance
document focused on multimedia compliance and environmental best
practices and (2) a brochure related to the Surface Coating Rule
requirements.  The entire site visit (including the survey and debrief)
is expected to last approximately 45 to 85 minutes.

 We are not planning a panel approach, where we would measure the same
shops at multiple points in time.  A panel approach is not feasible in
this case due to potential measurement effects.

 Elevated Risk - NATA data was broken into five classes using the
Natural Breaks method -
http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.2/index.cfm?TopicName=Natural_br
eaks_(Jenks), towns that intersected any of the top three categories
were designated as elevated risk.  This was done for both Cancer Risk
and Non-Cancer Risk.

 See Tables B-4 and B-5 for the MDEs associated with doubling the sample
sizes.

 Our calculations assume that any disagreement between the telephone and
on-site measurements is due to exaggeration of environmental performance
in the telephone interviews.  That is, we assume that telephone
respondents will not report unsatisfactory environmental performance
when the shop’s performance is in fact satisfactory.

 The impact of performance rate on MDE is symmetric around 50%, so that
the MDEs associated with a 70% performance rate are identical to the
MDEs associated with a 30% performance rate (and similarly with 90% and
10%).

 Additional information regarding the selected shops is available from
Kenneth Harmon,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 If the Agency doubles the sample size, EPA-trained contractors will
need to supplement the work of Agency employees for Group C.

 Note that although all four group dummies have been included in the
model, the constant term has been excluded.

 Expanding the Use of Outcome Measurement for EPA’s Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Report to OMB, July 31, 2006, p.
30.

Part B, Page   PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45173-45175]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20776]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9451; Product Identifier 2016-NE-24-AD; Amendment
39-19058; AD 2017-20-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TFE731-20 and TFE731-40
turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by two fan disks found with a
manufacturing-caused flaw. This AD requires removing affected fan disks
and replacing fan disks with a part eligible for installation. We are
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 2, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 2,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ
85034-2802; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9451.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9451; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document 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: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., 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 by adding an AD that would apply to all Honeywell TFE731-20 and
TFE731-40 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on March 7, 2017 (82 FR 12755). The NPRM was prompted by two fan disks
found with a manufacturing-caused flaw. The NPRM proposed to require
removing the affected fan disks, performing a one-time inspection, and
replacing fan disks that fail inspection. We are issuing this AD to
prevent uncontained failure of the fan disks, damage to the engine, and
damage to the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We have considered the comment received.

Miscellaneous Comment

    We received a comment regarding Honeywell as a company that was not
relevant to this AD. No further discussion is required.

Changes to This AD

    Based on further review, we made the following changes to this AD.
    We corrected the cost per product estimate under ``On-condition
costs'' in the Costs of Compliance section of the NPRM from $300,510 to
$50,085 in this AD. The cost per product in the NPRM incorrectly
estimated the cost for six engines rather than for one engine. On
further review, we also redefined the work hours needed to install the
new or reworked fan disk. The 8 work hours to inspect the fan disk were
listed as a separate item in the NPRM but, in this final rule, we added
these work hours to the estimated cost of installing the reworked or
new fan disk. The overall estimated cost of this work per engine
remains the same.
    We corrected the product identification from ``Honeywell
International Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal
Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and
AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona)'' to ``Honeywell
International Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by AlliedSignal
Inc.).''
    We removed paragraph (g)(4) of the NPRM which required inspection
of the removed fan disks in accordance with paragraph 3.D.(2) in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0,
dated October 7, 2016. Although fan disks may be returned to Honeywell
for inspection and rework to become eligible for installation, that is
not a requirement of this AD.
    We revised the definition of ``parts eligible for installation'' in
paragraph (g) of this AD to read: ``For the purposes of this AD, parts
eligible for installation are: (i) Fan disks not listed in the
Accomplishment Instructions, Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256,
Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016; or (ii) fan disks listed in Table 9
that have been inspected, reworked, and marked with ``T43374'' adjacent
to the P/N or S/N. Guidance on returning affected parts to Honeywell
for inspection and rework is found in the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.D., of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256.'' This definition
clarifies that fan disks with a P/N not affected by this AD, as well as
parts that have been reworked and remarked, are eligible for
installation.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the

public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed for minor
editorial changes and the additional changes explained above. 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.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) TFE731-72-5256,
Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016. The SB identifies affected fan disks
by serial number and describes procedures for removing, inspecting, and
replacing the fan disks. This service information is available by the
means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 61 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove fan disk.......................  8 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $680         $41,480
                                         hour = $680.
Install reworked or new fan disk......  26 work-hours x $85 per                0           2,210         134,810
                                         hour = $2,210.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary disk
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
required inspection. We estimate that 6 engines will need this
replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace non-serviceable disks with new fan   1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85...         $50,000         $50,085
 disk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch,
Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-20-01 Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate previously
held by AlliedSignal Inc.): Amendment 39-19058; Docket No. FAA-2016-
9451; Product Identifier 2016-NE-24-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 2, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell)
TFE731-20 and TFE731-40 turbofan engines, with a fan disk, part
number (P/N) 3060287-2, and a

serial number (S/N) listed in Table 9 of Honeywell Service Bulletin
(SB) TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016, that do not
have ``T43374'' marked adjacent to the engine P/N or S/N.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of two fan disks found with
surface rollovers in the dovetail slot area. We are issuing this AD
to prevent uncontained failure of the fan disks, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Remove the fan disk using the following criteria:
    (1) Remove fan disks with 9,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) or more
on the effective date of this AD, within 100 cycles-in-service
(CIS), or at the next engine shop visit, or at next access,
whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Remove fan disks with between 8,000 and 8,999 CSN,
inclusive, on the effective date of this AD, within 9,100 CSN or
within 1,000 CIS, or at the next engine shop visit, or at next
access, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Remove fan disks with fewer than 8,000 CSN, on the effective
date of this AD, before exceeding 9,000 CSN, or at the next engine
shop visit, or at next access, whichever occurs first, after the
effective date of this AD.
    (4) Replace all removed fan disks with a part eligible for
installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purposes of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined
as the removal of the tie-shaft nut from the engine.
    (2) For the purposes of this AD, access is defined as the
removal of the fan rotor assembly from the engine.
    (3) For the purposes of this AD, parts eligible for installation
are:
    (i) fan disks not listed in the Accomplishment Instructions,
Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated October
7, 2016; or
    (ii) fan disks listed in Table 9, in Honeywell SB TFE731-72-
5256, Revision 0, dated October 7, 2016, that have been inspected,
reworked, and marked with ``T43374'' adjacent to the P/N or S/N.
Guidance on returning affected parts to Honeywell for inspection and
rework is found in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.D.,
of Honeywell SB TFE731-72-5256.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the Los Angeles ACO Branch, send it to the attention
of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa,
Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Honeywell Service Bulletin TFE731-72-5256, Revision 0, dated
October 7, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Honeywell service information identified in this AD,
contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix,
AZ 85034-2802; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 21, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-20776 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23705-23706]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption to Daimler
Trucks North America (Daimler) for one of its commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. Daimler requested a 5-year exemption from the Federal
requirement to hold a U.S. commercial driver's license (CDL) for Mr.
Kai Zeuner, a project engineer for the Daimler Trucks and Bus Division.
Mr. Zeuner holds a valid German commercial license and wants to test-
drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand product
requirements for these systems in ``real world'' environments, and
verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for a German
commercial license ensure that holders of the license will likely
achieve a level of safety equal to or greater than that of drivers who
hold a U.S. State-issued CDL.

DATES: This exemption is effective May 23, 2017 and expires May 23,
2022.

ADDRESSES:
    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. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    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
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2012-0032 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. 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 also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, 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 decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    On behalf of Mr. Kai Zeuner, Daimler has applied for a 5-year
exemption from 49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements
for drivers operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. Mr.
Zeuner is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the States due to his lack
of residency in the United States. A copy of the application is in
Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
    The exemption would allow Mr. Zeuner to operate CMVs in interstate
or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet
future vehicle safety and environmental requirements and to develop
improved safety and emission technologies. Mr. Zeuner needs to drive
Daimler vehicles on public roads to better understand ``real world''
environments in the U.S. market. According to Daimler, Mr. Zeuner will
typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive
days, and 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane State
highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving
will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400
miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis. He will in all
cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the
routes to be traveled.
    Mr. Zeuner would be required to comply with all applicable Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR parts 350-399) except
the CDL provisions described in this notice.
    Mr. Zeuner holds a valid German commercial license, and as
explained by Daimler in its exemption request, the requirements for
that license ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as
if this driver had a U.S. CDL. Furthermore, according to Daimler, Mr.
Zeuner is familiar with the operation of CMVs worldwide.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    FMCSA has previously determined that the process for obtaining a
German commercial license is comparable to, or as effective as, the
requirements of part 383, and adequately assesses the driver's ability
to operate CMVs in the U.S. Since 2012, FMCSA has granted Daimler
drivers similar exemptions [May 25, 2012 (77 FR 31422); July 22, 2014
(79 FR 42626); March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16511); October 5, 2015 (80 FR
60220); December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76059); December 21, 2015 (80 FR
79410)].

V. Public Comments

    On January 6, 2017, FMCSA published notice of this application and
requested public comments (82 FR 1782). Two comments were submitted,
which neither opposed nor supported the requested exemption.

VI. FMCSA Decision

    Based upon the merits of this application, including Mr. Zeuner's

extensive driving experience and safety record, FMCSA has concluded
that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption, in accordance with Sec.  381.305(a).

VII. Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    FMCSA grants Daimler and Kai Zeuner an exemption from the CDL
requirement in 49 CFR 383.23 to allow Mr. Zeuner to drive CMVs in this
country without a U.S. State-issued CDL, subject to the following terms
and conditions: (1) The driver and carrier must comply with all other
applicable provisions of the FMCSRs (49 CFR parts 350-399); (2) the
driver must be in possession of the exemption document and a valid
German commercial license; (3) the driver must be employed by and
operate the CMV within the scope of his duties for Daimler; (4) at all
times while operating a CMV under this exemption, the driver must be
accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the routes
traveled; (5) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing within 5 business
days of any accident, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, involving this
driver; and (6) Daimler must notify FMCSA in writing if this driver is
convicted of a disqualifying offense under Sec.  383.51 or Sec.  391.15
of the FMCSRs.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will
be valid for 5 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) Mr. Zeuner fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level
of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would be inconsistent with the goals and
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.

VIII. Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate or intrastate
commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption
with respect to a firm or person operating under the exemption.

    Issued on: May 17, 2017.
 Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-10554 Filed 5-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P