2009-18-20 Airbus: Amendment 39-16017. Docket No. FAA-2009-0264; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-174-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-300, A340-200, and A340-300 series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD. (1) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) up to and including MSN 588, except those on which Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3110 has been embodied in service. (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, MSNs up to and including MSN 598, except those on which Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4115 has been embodied in service. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: One Long Range operator experienced a failure of one spoiler servo-control, associated with surface deflection in flight and hydraulic leak. On ground, this servo-control Part Number (P/N) MZ4306000-02X was found with the maintenance cover broken. Investigations showed that the rupture of the maintenance cover was due to pressure pulse fatigue. The maintenance cover allows switching the servo-control from “Operational” to “Maintenance” modes. The same cover is installed on all standard MZ spoiler servo-controls except on P/N MZ4339390-12 and MZ4306000-12, which have a reinforced maintenance cover. The rupture of the maintenance cover in flight may result in the deflection of the associated spoiler surface up to the null-hinge position (loss of the hydraulic locking). It may also result in the loss of the associated hydraulic system (external leakage). In the worst case, the three hydraulic systems may be affected, which constitutes an unsafe condition. For the reasons described above, this EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) AD requires the identification and the modification of all standard MZ spoiler servo-controls with initial maintenance cover (P/N MZ4339390-01X, -02X, -10X for position 1 and P/N MZ4306000-01X, 02X, -10X for positions 2 to 6) into standard MZ servo-controls with reinforced maintenance cover (P/N MZ4339390-12 for position 1 and P/N MZ4306000-12 for positions 2 to 6). Loss of the three hydraulic systems could result in reduced controllability of the airplane. Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 8,500 total flight cycles since first flight of the airplane as of the effective date of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. (i) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD: Identify the part number of spoiler servo-controls installed on the airplane at all positions in order to determine the number of affected hydraulic circuits in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27A3154, Revision 01; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-27A4154, Revision 01; both dated July 25, 2008; as applicable. If there is no spoiler servo-control installed with a part number identified in Table 1 of this AD, no further action is required by this paragraph. (ii) If there is any spoiler servo-control installed with a part number identified in Table 1 of this AD, do all applicable actions required by paragraph (f)(2), (f)(3), or (f)(4) of this AD, as applicable. MZ4339390-01X MZ4306000-01X MZ4339390-02X MZ4306000-02X MZ4339390-10X MZ4306000-10XPosition 1 | Positions 2 through 6 |
---|---|
MZ4339390-01X | MZ4306000-01X |
MZ4339390-02X | MZ4306000-02X |
MZ4339390-10X | MZ4306000-10X |
Service Bulletin | Revision level | Date |
---|---|---|
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3110 | Original | November 28, 2003. |
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3110 | 01 | March 26, 2004. |
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3110 | 02 | March 2, 2007. |
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4115 | Original | November 28, 2003. |
Service Bulletin | Revision level | Date |
---|---|---|
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27A3154 | 01 | July 25, 2008. |
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-27A4154 | 01 | July 25, 2008. |
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3110 | 03 | September 3, 2008. |
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4115 | 01 | March 2, 2007. |
Service Bulletin | Revision level | Date |
---|---|---|
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27A3154, excluding Appendix 1 | 01 | July 25, 2008. |
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-27A4154, excluding Appendix 1 | 01 | July 25, 2008. |
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-27-3110 | 03 | September 3, 2008. |
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-27-4115 | 01 | March 2, 2007. |
2009-18-12 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Amendment 39-16008. Docket No. FAA-2009-0526; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-029-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-400, DHC-8-401, and DHC-8-402 series airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004, 4006, and 4008 through 4154 inclusive. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 61: Propellers/Propulsors. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: Four aircraft have experienced a dual AC [alternating current] generator shutdown, caused by a broken propeller de-ice bus bar which short-circuited with the backplate assembly. It was subsequently determined that any friction or contact between a propeller de-ice bus bar and the backplate assembly can cause an intermittent short circuit. Such a short circuit can cause a dual AC generator shutdown that, particularly in conjunction with an engine failure in icing conditions, could result in reduced controllability of the aircraft. This [Transport Canada Civil Aviation] directive mandates revision of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to introduce a procedure that restores AC power following a failure of No. 1 and No. 2 AC generators with propeller de-ice on. Additionally, in order to prevent similar dual AC generator shutdowns, it mandates the application of sealant as insulation between the propeller de-ice bus bars and the backplate assembly. Reduced controllability of the airplane in certain operating conditions affects continued safe flight and landing. Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 AFM, PSM 1-84-1A, by inserting a copy of Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Temporary Amendment (TA) 14, Issue 1, dated May 10, 2006. When the information in Bombardier TA 14, Issue 1, dated May 10, 2006, is included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM and the TA may be removed. (2) Within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Apply sealant between the bus bar assemblies and the backplate assembly by incorporating Bombardier DHC-8-400 Modification Summary 4-163047, Revision B, dated August 22, 2008, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-61-03, Revision `A,' dated September 18, 2008. (3) Incorporating Bombardier DHC-8-400 Modification Summary Package 4-163047 before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-61-03, dated April 27, 2007, is considered acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Wing Chan, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7311; fax (516) 794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service. (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946319 Related Information (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-01, dated January 19, 2009; Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 TA 14, Issue 1, dated May 10, 2006; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-61-03, Revision `A,' dated September 18, 2008; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference (i) You must use Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Temporary Amendment 14, Issue 1, dated May 10, 2006; and Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-61-03, Revision `A,' dated September 18, 2008; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; e-mail thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. (3) You may review copies of the 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 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152. (4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2009. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-20836 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P2009-18-09 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-16005. Docket No. FAA-2009-0563; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-180-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 99-20-01, Amendment 39-11329. Applicability (c) This AD applies to airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD. (1) Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes, all serial numbers. (2) Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 airplanes, serial numbers 11521, 11528 through 11537 inclusive, 11545, 11547, 11553, 11557, 11561, 11562, 11566, 11567, 11571, 11572, 11576 through 11579 inclusive, and 11581 through 11583 inclusive. All airplanes with these serial numbers are fitted with center wing fuel tanks. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 31 and 78: Instruments and Engine Exhaust, respectively. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: A recent design review has been carried out on the F28 Mark 0070/0100 fuel system in accordance with the guidelines related to FAA SFAR 88 [Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88] (Fuel Tank Safety Program) and JAA [Joint Aviation Authorities] INT/POL/25/12. The review revealed that under certain failure conditions, prolonged dry running of the fuel transfer pumps may result in an ignition source in the centre wing fuel tank. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to ignition of flammable fuel vapors, resulting in fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aircraft. To address and correct this unsafe condition, new software (version V13.55) has been developed for the Flight Warning Computer (FWC). This software update introduces a decreased time delay of the centre wing fuel tank low pressure alert from 15 minutes to 60 seconds, to stop prolonged dry running of the fuel transfer pumps. For the reasons described above, this EASA Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires the replacement of the FWC with a modified unit, incorporating software version V13.55. The corrective actions include revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to change certain indications and warnings; installing new software for the multifunction display unit (MFDU); and installing a new resistor in the thrust reverser indicator and control system, or an improved thrust reverser unlock indication relay. Restatement of Requirements of AD 99-20-01 With No Changes to the Modifications (f) Unless already done, within 18 months after October 27, 1999 (the effective date of AD 99-20-01), modify the electrical wiring of the FWC in accordance with Part 1 or 2, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-047, Revision 1, dated March 21, 1997. Note 1: It is not necessary to install computer software version V10.40 into the FWC, since a later version is available and is required to be installed by AD 99-20-01. (g) Unless already done, concurrently with the accomplishment of the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD, install upgraded computer software version V11.45 into the FWC in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051, dated August 15, 1998. Note 2: AlliedSignal Grimes Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin 80-0610-31-0031, dated May 14, 1998, as an additional source Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946321 of guidance for installation of the upgraded computer software version into the FWC. Note 3: Operators should note that Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051, dated August 15, 1998, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-014 (which specifies concurrent accomplishment of Fokker Component Service Bulletin (CSB) P41440-78-04, and prior or concurrent accomplishment of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-012 and CSB P41440-78-05). Related FAA AD 99-20-02, amendment 39-11330, requires accomplishment of these four other service bulletins. New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance (h) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace FWC units having part number (P/N) 80-0610-3-45 and P/N 80-0610-3-50 with modified units having P/N 80-0610-3-55, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008. (2) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD and concurrently with the accomplishment of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, revise the Emergency and Abnormal Procedures sections of the airplane flight manual (AFM), as specified in Fokker Manual Change Notification-Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, which is included in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008. These AFM sections provide alterations, which are introduced in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067, Revision 1, dated April 24, 2008. Note 4: Revisions to the Emergency Procedures and Abnormal Procedures sections of the AFM, as specified in Fokker MCNO-F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, may be done by inserting copies of Fokker MCNO-F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, into the AFM. When the information in Fokker MCNO-F100-050, dated January 31, 2008, has been included in general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted in the AFM, provided the relevant information in the general revisions are identical to that in Fokker MCNO-F100-050, dated January 31, 2008. (3) After accomplishing paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, no person may install an FWC having P/N 80-0610-3-45 or P/N 80-0610-3-50, unless it has been modified to P/N 80-0610-3-55 standard in accordance with Honeywell Service Bulletin 80-0610-31-0003, dated February 13, 2008. (4) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, install software version V12 for the MFDU in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060, dated June 1, 2002. (5) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the thrust reverser indication and control system in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016, dated October 1, 1999; or modify the thrust reverser unlock indication relay in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017, dated December 1, 1999. FAA AD Differences Note 5: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: (1) Replacing the MFDU in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060, dated June 1, 2002, is not included in the MCAI; however, this AD includes that action. It is necessary to install a new version of the MFDU software before installing the new version of the FWC software. (2) Modifying the thrust reverser indication and control system in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016, dated October 1, 1999; or modifying the thrust reverser unlock indication relay in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017, dated December 1, 1999, is not included in the MCAI; however, this AD includes those actions. It is necessary to do one of those actions before installing the MFDU software. 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, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service. (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2008-0090, dated May 13, 2008, and the service information identified in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-047 1 March 21, 1997. Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051 Original August 15, 1998. Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060 Original June 1, 2002. Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067, including Fokker Manual Change Notification-Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-50, dated January 31, 2008 1 April 24, 2008. Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016 Original October 1, 1999. Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017 Original December 1, 1999.Service information— | Revision level— | Dated— |
---|---|---|
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-047 | 1 | March 21, 1997. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-051 | Original | August 15, 1998. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060 | Original | June 1, 2002. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067, including Fokker Manual Change Notification-Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-50, dated January 31, 2008 | 1 | April 24, 2008. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016 | Original | October 1, 1999. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017 | Original | December 1, 1999. |
Document | Revision | Date |
---|---|---|
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-060 | Original | June 1, 2002. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-067, including Fokker Manual Change Notification-Operational Documentation MCNO-F100-50, dated January 31, 2008 | 1 | April 24, 2008. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-016 | Original | October 1, 1999. |
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-78-017 | Original | December 1, 1999. |
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 14, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19464). That NPRM proposed to correct Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946323 an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: An A340 operator has reported an uncommanded engine N°4 shut down during taxi after landing. The root cause of this event has been identified as failure of the fuel pump Non Return Valve (NRV) preventing the collector cell jet pump from working. This led to engine N°4 collector cell fuel level to drop below the pump inlet and consequently causing engine N°4 flame out. A330 aircraft which have a similar design are also impacted by this issue. Multiple NRV failures in combination with failure modes trapping fuel could potentially increase the quantity of unusable fuel on aircraft possibly leading to fuel starvation which could result in engine in-flight shut down and would constitute an unsafe condition. To prevent such an event, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires a periodic operational test to check the correct operation of NRV and to apply the associated corrective actions.The corrective action includes replacing any failed NRV with a new NRV. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Request To Clarify Applicability Statement and Paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of the NPRM Airbus suggests that we revise the NPRM to specify all models in the Applicability statement and in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of the proposed AD. We agree. For clarity, we have revised the applicability statement and paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3)(i), and (f)(3)(ii) of this AD to identify all affected models as specified in the applicable type certificate data sheet. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD affects 50 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it takes about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $20,000, or $400 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General Requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:2009-18-19 Airbus: Amendment 39-16016. Docket No. FAA-2009-0381; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-008-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the AD, certificated in any category. (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 series airplanes, all serial numbers. (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 series airplanes, all serial numbers. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: An A340 operator has reported an uncommanded engine N°4 shut down during taxi after landing. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946324 The root cause of this event has been identified as failure of the fuel pump Non Return Valve (NRV) preventing the collector cell jet pump from working. This led to engine N°4 collector cell fuel level to drop below the pump inlet and consequently causing engine N°4 flame out. A330 aircraft which have a similar design are also impacted by this issue. Multiple NRV failures in combination with failure modes trapping fuel could potentially increase the quantity of unusable fuel on aircraft possibly leading to fuel starvation which could result in engine in-flight shut down and would constitute an unsafe condition. To prevent such an event, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires a periodic operational test to check the correct operation of NRV and to apply the associated corrective actions. The corrective action includes replacing any failed NRV with a new NRV. Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) For Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 series airplanes: At the later of the times in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, perform an operational test for correct functioning of the NRV and apply all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with instructions defined in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-28-3108, including Appendix 1, dated October 13, 2008. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. (i) Within 24 months or 8,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. (ii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight hours after the first flight of the airplane. (2) For Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 series airplanes: At the later of the times in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD, perform an operational test for correct functioning of the NRV and apply all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with instructions defined in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-28-4123, including Appendix 1, dated October 13, 2008. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. (i) Within 24 months or 9,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. (ii) Before the accumulation of 25,000 total flight hours after the first flight of the airplane. (3) Repeat the operational test specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD as applicable, at the applicable interval in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) of this AD. (i) For Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 series airplanes: At intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight hours. (ii) For Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 series airplanes: At intervals not to exceed 25,000 flight hours. (4) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD to Airbus, at the time specified in paragraph (f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable. The report must include the information specified in Appendix 1 of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-28-3108 or A340-28-4123, both dated October 13, 2008, as applicable. Send the report to Airbus Department SEEE6, Airbus Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France, Attn: SDC32 Technical Data and Documentation Services; fax: +33 5 61 93 28 06; e-mail: sb.reporting@airbus.com. (i) If the inspection was done after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection. (ii) If the inspection was done on or prior to the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, 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. Send information to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1138; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or the principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service. (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2008-0209, dated November 27, 2008; Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-28-3108 and A340-28-4123, both including Appendix 1, both dated October 13, 2008; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference (i) You must use Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-28-3108, including Appendix 1, dated October 13, 2008; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-28-4123, including Appendix 1, dated October 13, 2008; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS—Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80, e-mail airworthiness.A330-A340@airbus.com ; Internet http://www.airbus.com . (3) You may review copies of the 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 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152. (4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 26, 2009. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-21409 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-PAction | Work hours | Average labor rate per hour | Parts | Cost per product | Number of U.S.- registered airplanes | Fleet cost |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test or Inspection | 1 | $80 | $0 | $80, per test or inspection cycle | 70 | $5,600 |
Replacement | 3 | 80 | 3,138 | 3,378 | 70 | 236,460 |
2009-19-02 Boeing: Amendment 39-16019. Docket No. FAA-2009-0212; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-122-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls. Unsafe Condition (e) This AD results from reports of low rudder pedal forces that were caused by a broken inner spring in the rudder feel and centering unit; a broken inner spring in conjunction with a broken outer spring would significantly reduce rudder pedal forces. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced rudder pedal forces, which could result in increased potential for pilot-induced oscillations and reduce the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. Compliance (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Test/Inspection (g) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1287, dated April 16, 2008: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, perform a test of the rudder pedal forces or a detailed inspection of the inner spring of the rudder feel and centering unit, by doing all the applicable actions, including all applicable corrective actions before further flight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1287, dated April 16, 2008. Repeat the test or inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 120 days. Terminating Action (h) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1287, dated April 16, 2008: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the spring assembly in the rudder feel and centering unit in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1287, dated April 16, 2008. Accomplishing the replacement ends the repetitive tests or inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Parts Installation (i) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a rudder feel and centering unit having part number (P/N) 65C25410-7, serial numbers 3609 through 3820 inclusive, unless it has been modified according to paragraph (h) of this AD. No Reporting Required (j) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1287, dated April 16, 2008, specifies sending a data reporting sheet to Boeing; however, this AD does not require that action. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946327 Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6490; fax (425) 917-6590; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a principal inspector, your local FSDO. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference (l) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1287, dated April 16, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1, fax 206-766-5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com ; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com . (3) You may review copies of the 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 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152. (4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 31, 2009. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-21412 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-PWe are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 14, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2009 (74 FR 19908). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: An operator has reported the loss of a centre flap inner tab on an in-service A300 aircraft. The centre flap inner tab detached during approach to an airport. A similar event was reported several years ago on a pre-mod 04770 aircraft. Previous failure at the aft lug of the centre brackets led to the issuance of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205. In the most recent case, the aircraft had been modified in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 (Airbus modification No. 04770). Investigations led by the manufacturer revealed that the centre hinge bracket developed a fatigue crack causing complete failure of the bracket. The tab rotated causing failure of the inboard link followed by the failure of the outboard link. To avoid a detachment of a centre flap inner tab, which could be a potential risk to persons on [the] ground, this AD requires a repetitive [high frequency eddy current] inspection of the centre flap inner tab hinge bracket and replacement of the bracket when cracks are detected * * * [and] reporting of inspection results to the TC holder [and provides] an optional terminating action. * * * * * * * *You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Request for Clarification of Reporting Requirement TradeWinds Airlines points out that although paragraph (e), “Reason,” of the NPRM describes reporting inspection results to the Type Certificate holder, the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of the NPRM currently have no information that describes the reporting requirement. We infer that TradeWinds Airlines is asking us to clarify the reporting requirement, and we agree that clarification is necessary. Paragraph (e) of the NPRM quotes European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2007-0299R2, dated October 28, 2008. The EASA AD includes reporting; however, this AD does not require reporting. We have updated Note 1 of this final rule to clarify this difference. We also removed paragraph (g)(3) of the Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946328 proposed AD because that paragraph provides reporting requirement information and it is unnecessary to include that information in this final rule. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a note within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 55 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $96,800, or $4,400 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:2009-19-01 Airbus: Amendment 39-16018. Docket No. FAA-2009-0397; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-023-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1C, B2-203, B2K-3C, B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except airplanes which have been modified in accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0252 (Airbus Modification 13400). Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: An operator has reported the loss of a centre flap inner tab on an in-service A300 aircraft. The centre flap inner tab detached during approach to an airport. A similar event was reported several years ago on a pre-mod 04770 aircraft. Previous failure at the aft lug of the centre brackets led to the issuance of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205. In the most recent case, the aircraft had been modified in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 (Airbus modification No. 04770). Investigations led by the manufacturer revealed that the centre hinge bracket developed a fatigue crack causing complete failure of the bracket. The tab rotated causing failure of the inboard link followed by the failure of the outboard link. To avoid a detachment of a centre flap inner tab, which could be a potential risk to persons on [the] ground, this AD requires a repetitive [high frequency eddy current] inspection of the centre flap inner tab hinge bracket and replacement of the bracket when cracks are detected * * * [and] reporting of inspection results to the TC holder [and provides] an optional terminating action. * * * * * * * * Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) At the times specified in Table 1 or Table 2 of this AD, as applicable, perform a high frequency eddy current inspection to detect fatigue cracks of the center hinge bracket of the center flap inner tab (on both wings), in accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0250, Revision 01, dated September 29, 2008. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 850 flight cycles. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946329 Less than 6,000 flight cycles Prior to accumulating 6,000 flight cycles since first flight or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 6,000 flight cycles or more, but less than 12,000 flight cycles Within 850 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. 12,000 flight cycles or more Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.Flight cycles accumulated since first flight as of the effective date of this AD | Compliance time |
---|---|
Less than 6,000 flight cycles | Prior to accumulating 6,000 flight cycles since first flight or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. |
6,000 flight cycles or more, but less than 12,000 flight cycles | Within 850 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. |
12,000 flight cycles or more | Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. |
Flight cycles accumulated since Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 modification as of the effective date of this AD | Compliance time |
---|---|
Less than 6,000 flight cycles | Prior to accumulating 6,000 flight cycles since Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0205 modification or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. |
6,000 flight cycles or more, but less than 12,000 flight cycles | Within 850 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. |
12,000 flight cycles or more | Within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD. |
2009-18-13 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-16009.; Docket No. FAA-2009-0771; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-14-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) model RB211 Trent 970-84, 970B-84, 972-84, 972B-84, 977-84, 977B-84, and 980-84 turbofan engines that do not incorporate RR modification Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-G025. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A380 airplanes. Reason (d) Evidence from development testing and flight test Trent 900 engines has identified cracking on some HP Turbine Nozzle Guide Vane (NGV) Convex Surfaces. Analysis of test data and review of the manufacturing process has revealed compounding effects that may contribute to a shortfall in component life and an increased likelihood of premature cracking in this region. Excessive cracking on the Convex Surface may lead to the release of NGV material or the blockage of Turbine gas flow. This results in a risk of fracture to the HP Turbine Blade. We are issuing this AD to prevent the release of a high-pressure (HP) turbine blade, which could result in an engine power loss or in-flight shut down of one or more engines, resulting in an inability to continue safe flight. Actions and Compliance First Inspection (e) Before accumulating 400 total cycles, inspect the HPT NGV Convex Surfaces, in accordance with the accomplishment instructions in section 3.A of Rolls-Royce RB211-Trent 900 Alert Non Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AF995 Revision 2, dated February 9, 2009. Reinspection (f) If no damage is identified at first inspection: (1) Repeat the inspection at intervals less than 250 Cycles apart. (2) If repeat inspections reveal no damage at 1000 cycles revert to normal inspection maintenance as detailed in the Rolls-Royce RB211-Trent 900 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), and sign off this AD as complied with; no further inspections are required by this AD. (g) If any damage is identified, refer to the Table 1 and Table 2 in section 3.B. of Rolls-Royce RB211-Trent 900 Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AF995 Revision 2, dated February 9, 2009, for reinspection intervals and rejection criteria. FAA AD Differences (h) None. Other FAA AD Provisions (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information (j) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0051, dated March 5, 2009. (k) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: ian.dargin@faa.gov ; telephone (781) 238-7178; fax (781) 238-7199, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference (l) You must use RR Alert Non Mandatory Service Bulletin RB.211-72-AF995 Revision 2, dated February 9, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 31, DERBY, DE24 8BJ, UK; telephone 44 (0) 1332 242424; fax 44 (0) 1332 249936. (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 20, 2009. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-20830 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-PAction | Work hours | Average labor rate per hour | Cost per airplane | Number of U.S.- registered airplanes | Fleet cost |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inspections (required by AD 2008-17-10) | 20 | $80 | $1,600 per inspection cycle | 11 | $17,600 per inspection cycle. |
Inspections (new required action) | 20 to 30, depending on group | 80 | $1,600 to $2,400 per inspection cycle | Up to 13 | Up to $31,200 per inspection cycle. |
2009-18-10 Boeing: Amendment 39-16006. Docket No. FAA-2009-0476; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-188-AD.
Effective Date (a) This AD becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-17-10, amendment 39-15648. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 707-100 long body, -200, -100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings. Unsafe Condition (e) This AD results from new findings of cracks found in the wing to body terminal fittings during routine inspections. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks and corrosion in the body terminal fittings above and below the floor, which could cause loss of support for the wing and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane. 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. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2008-17-10 With Updated Service Information Inspections and Corrective Actions (g) For airplanes identified in Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007: Within 24 months after October 2, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-17-10), do detailed inspections and applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007; or Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, use only Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008. Repeat the detailed inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. (h) If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, and Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007, or Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the terminal fittings using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. No Information Submission (i) Although Boeing 707 Special Attention Service Bulletin 3524, dated July 18, 2007; and Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008; specify to submit information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement. New Requirements of This AD Inspections (j) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, on which a modification or repair was done in accordance with Boeing 707/720 Service Bulletin 2912, Revision 1, dated March 13, 1970: At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, do an ultrasonic inspection to detect any stress corrosion cracks within the outboard flange of the left and right body terminal fittings at body station (STA) 820, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD. Repeat the ultrasonic inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months or 2,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. (1) Within 24 months or 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. (2) Within 24 months or 2,000 flight cycles after doing the repair or modification, whichever occurs first. (k) For Group 3 and Group 4 airplanes identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008: Within 2,000 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do an ultrasonic inspection to detect any stress corrosion cracks within the outboard flange of the left and right body terminal fittings at STA 820, and all applicable corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD. Repeat the ultrasonic inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months or 2,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. (l) For Group 4 airplanes identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do detailed inspections for corrosion and cracking of the body terminal fittings at STA 820, and all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, by accomplishing all the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD. Repeat the detailed inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Exception to Certain Procedures (m) If any crack or corrosion is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, and Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the terminal fittings using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Note 1: Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, refers to Boeing 707/720 Service Bulletin 2912, Revision 1, dated March 13, 1970, as an additional source of guidance for doing certain inspections and repairs. Optional Terminating Action (n) Replacing a body terminal fitting with a fitting made from 7075-T73 material, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required by this AD for that fitting only. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 917-6577; fax (425) 917-6590; or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov . (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD. (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference (p) You must use Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3524, Revision 1, dated September 18, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946334 this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; e-mail me.boecom@boeing.com ; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. (3) You may review copies of the 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 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152. (4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2009. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-20838 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-PThe unsafe condition is inadvertent opening of the door lock handle in flight, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane or ejection of a passenger or crewmember through the door. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 14, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2009 (74 FR 27260). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Following a red illuminated “DOOR NOT LOCKED” status light indication on the door lock indication panel after lift off, the cabin crew operated the door lock handle. This resulted in inadvertent opening of the downward opening passenger door in flight. It appeared that the cabin crew was unaware of the content of Fokker 70/100 Service Letter (SL) 272. This SL informs not to operate the door lock handle after the aircraft has started to move or before it has come to a complete standstill. After inspection, it was found that the false red light might be the result of an incorrect clearance between lever Part Number (P/N) A26997-003 and the Up-Limit Switch. If the Up-Limit Switch has an incorrect clearance, the combination with cabin differential pressure build-up after lift-off might result in a false steady illuminating red “DOOR NOT LOCKED” indication on the Door Indication Panel. The original Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-044 and the associated Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) task mentioned a clearance of 1,3 mm ± 0,3 mm. Later, based on a trial, an improved clearance of 0,3 mm ± 0,2 mm was introduced. Both documents have been revised for that reason. Later production serial number aircraft with downward opening passenger doors had the correct clearance introduced before delivery, but no action was taken to inspect and adjust the clearance on previously delivered or modified (per SBF100-52-044) serial numbers. Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other aircraft of the same type design, this [EASA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires two actions:—The installation of a warning placard near the status lights of the door lock indication panel, instructing the cabin crew not to operate the door handle during flight and to inform the flight crew of the “DOOR NOT LOCKED” indication; and
—A one-time inspection of the clearance between lever P/N A26997-003 and the Up-Limit Switch. If this clearance deviates from the limits given in AMM task 52-71-01-400-814-A, which is 0,3 mm ± 0,2 mm (0.0118 inch ± 0.0079 inch), corrective actions are required.
The unsafe condition is inadvertent opening of the door lock handle in flight, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane or ejection of a passenger or crewmember through the door. The corrective action for improper clearance is adjusting the clearance between the lever and the up-limit switch. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public. Conclusion We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed. 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. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946335 We might also have required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a Note within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $20 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $3,400, or $340 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:2009-18-11 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-16007. Docket No. FAA-2009-0515; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-071-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with a downward-opening “airstair” type passenger door. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 11 and 52: Placards and Markings, and Doors, respectively. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: “Following a red illuminated “DOOR NOT LOCKED” status light indication on the door lock indication panel after lift off, the cabin crew operated the door lock handle. This resulted in inadvertent opening of the downward opening passenger door in flight. It appeared that the cabin crew was unaware of the content of Fokker 70/100 Service Letter (SL) 272. This SL informs not to operate the door lock handle after the aircraft has started to move or before it has come to a complete standstill. “After inspection, it was found that the false red light might be the result of an incorrect clearance between lever Part Number (P/N) A26997-003 and the Up-Limit Switch. If the Up-Limit Switch has an incorrect clearance, the combination with cabin differential pressure build-up after lift-off might result in a false steady illuminating red “DOOR NOT LOCKED” indication on the Door Indication Panel. The original Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-044 and the associated Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) task mentioned a clearance of 1,3 mm ± 0,3 mm. Later, based on a trial, an improved clearance of 0,3 mm ± 0,2 mm was introduced. Both documents have been revised for that reason. Later production serial number aircraft with downward opening passenger doors had the correct clearance introduced before delivery, but no action was taken to inspect and adjust the clearance on previously delivered or modified (per SBF100-52-044) serial numbers. “Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other aircraft of the same type design, this [EASA] Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires two actions:—The installation of a warning placard near the status lights of the door lock indication panel, instructing the cabin crew not to operate the door handle during flight and to inform the flight crew of the “DOOR NOT LOCKED” indication; and
—A one-time inspection of the clearance between lever P/N A26997-003 and the Up-Limit Switch. If this clearance deviates from the limits given in AMM task 52-71-01-400-814-A, which is 0,3 mm ± 0,2 mm (0.0118 inch ± 0.0079 inch), corrective actions are required.”
The unsafe condition is inadvertent opening of the door lock handle in flight, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane or ejection of a passenger or crewmember through the door. The corrective action for improper clearance is adjusting the clearance between the lever and the up-limit switch. Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions: (1) Within 500 flight cycles or 4 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install a new warning placard near the status lights of the panel of the door lock indication, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-025, Revision 1, dated December 13, 2007. (2) Within 4,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946336 inspection of the clearance between lever P/N A26997-003 and the up-limit switch, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-086, dated November 1, 2007. (3) If any clearance is found outside the range defined in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-086, dated November 1, 2007, during the inspection required by paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, correct the clearance in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-086, dated November 1, 2007. (4) If done before the effective date of this AD, installing the warning placard near the status lights of the panel of the door lock indication, in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-025, dated November 1, 2007, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. (5) Modifying the airplane in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-044, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2007, terminates the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Note 1 of the “Compliance” section of European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2008-0020, dated January 28, 2008, states that any airplane that has not yet been modified in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-069, dated December 3, 2001, must be modified prior to or concurrently with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. However, all U.S. airplanes have met this requirement with the issuance of AD 2006-03-07, amendment 39-14471; therefore, modification in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-069, dated December 3, 2001, is not applicable. Other FAA AD Provisions (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service. (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0020, dated January 28, 2008; Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-025, Revision 1, dated December 13, 2007; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-086, dated November 1, 2007; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference (i) You must use Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-11-025, Revision 1, dated December 13, 2007; and Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-086, dated November 1, 2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. If you accomplish the optional modification specified in paragraph (f)(5) of this AD, you must use Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-044, Revision 1, dated November 1, 2007, to perform that modification, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31 (0)252-627-211; e-mail technicalservices.fokkerservices@stork.com; Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. (3) You may review copies of the 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 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152. (4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2009. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-20834 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-PThis AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.
DATES: This AD becomes effective September 24, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 24, 2009. We must receive comments on this AD by October 9, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Fax: (202) 493-2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946337 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. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2009-0159-E, dated July 20, 2009 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: A recent event occurred during which the LH [left-hand] forward side glass window of an ATR 72-212 aeroplane blew out while performing a ground pressure test. The investigation revealed some anomalies on the forward side window at the level of the Z-bar on the windows external side and at the level of the inner retainer on the windows internal side. These anomalies are considered as precursors of this failure. Air or water leakages between the Z-bar and the outer glass ply, or between the inner retainer and inner glass ply indicates the presence of deteriorating structural components in the window. It must also be noticed that neither ATR nor PPG Aerospace authorizes repairs on the window Z-bar/Z-bar sealant. Any attempted repairs on these forward side window Z-bars/Z-bar sealants could lead to a similar event that has originated this AD. An in-flight loss of a forward side window could have catastrophic consequences for the aeroplane and/or cause injuries to people on the ground. The loss of the forward side window while the aeroplane is on the ground with a positive differential cabin pressure could also cause injuries to people inside or around the aeroplane. Accordingly, this AD mandates initial and repetitive inspections of LH and RH [right-hand] cockpit forward side glass windows and in case of discrepancies, the replacement of the window(s). Remark: Acrylic-based cockpit forward side windows are not concerned by this AD.You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Relevant Service Information PPG Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 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 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between the 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 required 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 AD. FAA's Determination of the Effective Date An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because an in-flight loss of a forward side window could have catastrophic consequences for the airplane or cause injuries to people on the ground. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days. Comments Invited This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2009-0786; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-145-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946338 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 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. 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 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:2009-18-18 ATR—GIE Avions De Transport Régional (Formerly Aerospatiale): Amendment 39-16014. Docket No. FAA-2009-0786; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-145-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 24, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to ATR Model ATR42-200, -300, -320, and -500 airplanes and Model ATR72-101, -201, -102, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes; certificated in any category; that are equipped with any PPG Aerospace cockpit forward side glass window having part number (P/N) NP-158862-1 or NP-158862-2. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 56: Windows. Reason (e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI) states: A recent event occurred during which the LH [left-hand] forward side glass window of an ATR 72-212 aeroplane blew out while performing a ground pressure test. The investigation revealed some anomalies on the forward side window at the level of the Z-bar on the windows external side and at the level of the inner retainer on the windows internal side. These anomalies are considered as precursors of this failure. Air or water leakages between the Z-bar and the outer glass ply, or between the inner retainer and inner glass ply indicates the presence of deteriorating structural components in the window. It must also be noticed that neither ATR nor PPG Aerospace authorizes repairs on the window Z-bar/Z-bar sealant. Any attempted repairs on these forward side window Z-bars/Z-bar sealants could lead to a similar event that has originated this AD. An in-flight loss of a forward side window could have catastrophic consequences for the aeroplane and/or cause injuries to people on the ground. The loss of the forward side window while the aeroplane is on the ground with a positive differential cabin pressure could also cause injuries to people inside or around the aeroplane. Accordingly, this AD mandates initial and repetitive inspections of LH and RH [right-hand] cockpit forward side glass windows and in case of discrepancies, the replacement of the window(s). Remark: Acrylic-based cockpit forward side windows are not concerned by this AD. Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) Prior to the accumulation of 2,000 total flight cycles on any cockpit forward side window, or within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect for damage and absence of repair of the cockpit forward side windows, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009. If the total flight cycles on a given cockpit forward side window installed on an airplane cannot be established, the total flight cycles accumulated on the airplane must be used in determining the initial inspection time for the cockpit forward side window. (i) If any discrepant condition, as defined in PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009, is found: Replace the window, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or EASA (or its delegated agent), before further pressurized flight or within 10 days after the inspection, whichever occurs first. Note 1: Guidance on replacing windows may be found in ATR (ATR42) Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Job Instruction Card (JIC) 56-12-00 RAI 10000-011, dated February 2008; and ATR ATR72 AMM JIC 56-12-00 RAI 10000-001, dated April 2008. Note 2: Guidance on unpressurized flight conditions and limitations may be found in Section 21-30-1, dated February 2008, of the ATR Master Minimum Equipment List; and Section 21-30-1, dated February 2008, of the ATR Dispatch Deviation Guide. (ii) If one of the conditions identified in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)(a), (f)(1)(ii)(b), and (f)(1)(ii)(c) of this AD is found: Within 50 flight cycles or 7 days after the inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, whichever occurs later, repeat the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Re-inspect at intervals not to exceed 50 flight cycles or 7 days, whichever occurs later. When any discrepant condition, as defined in PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009, is found: Replace the window, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or EASA (or its delegated agent), before further pressurized flight or within 10 days after the inspection, whichever occurs first. (a) Sealant separation between the Z-bar and the outer glass ply, with depth less than or equal to 4 mm (0.160 in). (b) Sealant separation between inboard retainer and inner glass ply, with depth less than or equal to 7.5 mm (0.300 in) and cumulative length less than or equal to 300 mm (12.000 in). (c) Window showing both sealant separation between the Z-bar and the outer ply, and separation between inboard retainer and inner glass ply, common to the same hole location with a length less than or equal to 225 mm (8.860 in), and not covering the entire arc of a window corner. (iii) If no discrepancy is found: Re-inspect the cockpit forward side windows at intervals not to exceed 550 flight hours, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009. When any discrepant condition, as defined in PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009, is found: Replace the window, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, ANM-116, International Branch, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, or EASA (or its delegated agent), before further pressurized flight or within 10 days after the inspection, whichever occurs first. (2) Within 30 days after any inspection when damage or a discrepancy is found or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, submit a detailed report of the findings to ATR in accordance with PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009. FAA AD Differences Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No Differences. Other FAA AD Provisions (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD: (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANM-116, International Branch. Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946339 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. (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. (4) Special Flight Permits: We are permitting special flight permits provided that the airplane is unpressurized during flight. Related Information (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2009-0159-E, dated July 20, 2009; and PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009; for related information. Material Incorporated by Reference (i) You must use PPG Aerospace Service Bulletin NP-158862-001, dated July 8, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact PPG Aerospace, 12780 San Fernando Road, Sylmar, California 91342; telephone 818-362-6711; fax 818-362-0603; Internet http://corporateportal.ppg.com/na/aerospace. (3) You may review copies of the 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 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152. (4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 26, 2009. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-21312 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P2009-18-14 328 Support Services GmbH (Formerly, AvCraft Aerospace GmbH, formerly Fairchild Dornier GmbH, formerly Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH): Amendment 39-16010. Docket No. FAA-2009-0522; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-127-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-09-16, Amendment 39-13605. Applicability (c) This AD applies to 328 Support Services GmbH Dornier Model 328-100 airplanes on which a rudder spring tab lever assembly having part number 001A272A4020-002 is installed, and all Model 328-300 airplanes. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight controls. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: On 14 March 2002, an incident occurred with a Dornier 328-100 where the captain reported that the rudder was unresponsive. The aircraft landed without any further difficulties. A visual inspection of the rudder assembly was carried out and the spring tab assembly was found to be cracked and partially missing. During subsequent inspections of other aircraft, a number of additional rudder spring tab lever assemblies were found cracked. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the rudder flight control system and consequent loss of control of the aircraft. To address and correct this unsafe condition, LBA (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt) issued AD 2003-383 and 2003-384 [which correspond to FAA Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946341 AD 2004-09-16] for the Dornier 328-100 and 328-300 respectively, to require the initial and repetitive inspection of the rudder spring tab lever assembly and, in case cracks were found, the replacement of the rudder spring tab lever assembly with a serviceable unit. The current TC (type certificate) holder of this type design, 328 Support Services GmbH, has recently published Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036, Revision 2, which reduces the inspection interval to A-check [400 FH] (400 flight hours). In addition, Service Bulletin SB-328-27-459 was revised to change the compliance status from `optional' to `mandatory' and instructs operators to replace the rudder spring tab lever assembly with an improved unit P/N (part number) 001A272A4020-004, ending the need for the repetitive inspections. For the reasons described above, this EASA AD retains the repetitive inspection requirements of LBA AD 2003-383, which is superseded, expands the applicability to all serial numbers, reduces the inspection interval to 400 [flight hours], and requires the replacement of the rudder spring tab lever assembly with an improved unit P/N 001A272A4020-004, as specified in SB-328-27-459. Compliance (f) Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously. Restatement of Requirements of AD 2004-09-16, Including Repetitive Inspections With Reduced Intervals for Model 328-100 Airplanes (g) For all airplanes: Within 400 flight hours or 2 months after June 9, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2004-09-16), whichever is first; do detailed and eddy current inspections for cracking of the bearing lugs of the rudder spring tab lever assembly by doing all the actions per Paragraphs 2.A., 2.B., and 2.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036 (for Model 328-100 airplanes), dated February 12, 2003, or Revision 3, dated February 8, 2008; or Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328J-27-013 (for Model 328-300 airplanes), dated February 12, 2003; as applicable. Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.” (1) For Model 328-100 airplanes: If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the next inspection within 400 flight hours after doing the last inspection, or within 400 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; and repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours. Repeat the inspections until the replacement required by paragraph (k) of this AD has been done. (2) For Model 328-300 airplanes: If no cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Corrective Action (h) For all airplanes: If any cracking is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD. (1) For Model 328-100 airplanes: Before further flight, do the replacement required by paragraph (k) of this AD, or replace the spring tab lever assembly with a new assembly by doing all the actions per Paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036, dated February 12, 2003; or Revision 3, dated February 8, 2008. (2) For Model 328-300 airplanes: Before further flight, replace the spring tab lever assembly with a new assembly by doing all the actions per Paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328J-27-013, dated February 12, 2003. Repeat the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Note 2: For Model 328-300 airplanes: There is no terminating action available for the repetitive inspections required by this AD. (i) Dornier Alert Service Bulletins ASB-328-27-036, dated February 12, 2003, and Revision 3, dated February 8, 2008; and ASB-328J-27-013, dated February 12, 2003; recommend reporting crack findings and returning damaged lever assemblies to the manufacturer, but this AD does not contain such requirements. New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance (j) For Model 328-100 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2008, must be used for accomplishing the inspections and corrective actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. (k) For Model 328-100 airplanes: Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace any rudder spring tab lever assembly having P/N 001A272A4020-002 with an improved unit having P/N 001A272A4020-004, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-459, Revision 2, dated February 8, 2008. Accomplishment of the replacement required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. (l) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-459, dated May 3, 2004; or Revision 1, dated January 24, 2008; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD for Model 328-100 airplanes. Actions done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036, Revision 1, dated May 7, 2004; or Revision 2, dated January 24, 2008; are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of this AD for Model 328-300 airplanes. FAA AD Differences Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions (m) 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. Send information to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. (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 (n) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2008-0107, dated June 23, 2008; German Airworthiness Directive 2003-384, dated November 13, 2003; and the service information contained in Table 1 of this AD, for related information. Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036 3 February 8, 2008. Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328J-27-013 Original February 12, 2003. Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-459 2 February 8, 2008.Document | Revision | Date |
---|---|---|
Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036 | 3 | February 8, 2008. |
Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328J-27-013 | Original | February 12, 2003. |
Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-459 | 2 | February 8, 2008. |
Document | Revision | Date |
---|---|---|
Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328-27-036 | 3 | February 8, 2008. |
Dornier Alert Service Bulletin ASB-328J-27-013 | Original | February 12, 2003. |
Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-459 | 2 | February 8, 2008. |
The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of the frame foot run-outs, which could lead to rupture of the frame foot and cracking in adjacent frames and skin, and which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
DATES: This AD becomes effective October 14, 2009. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stafford, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1622; fax (425) 227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2009 (74 FR 26312), and proposed to supersede AD 2006-02-06, Amendment 39-14458 (71 FR 3214, January 20, 2006). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD F-2005-078 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-02-06, Amendment 39-14458, 71 FR 3214, January 20, 2006] to require the modification (Airbus modification 13023), defined in Airbus SB [service bulletin] A310-53-2124, to increase the service life of junctions of center box upper frame bases to upper fuselage arches. This structural modification falls within the scope of the work related to the extension of the service life of A310 aircraft and widespread fatigue damage evaluations. The threshold timescales for accomplishment of the tasks as defined in SB A310-53-2124 were refined and reduced. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2007-0238 to require compliance with Revision 1 of SB A310-53-2124 at the reduced compliance times, superseding (the requirements of) DGAC France AD F-2005-078. Subsequently, Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946343 Airbus identified reference material that was erroneously introduced into Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 1. As a result, the SB instructions could not be accomplished properly. Operators that tried to apply SB A310-53-2124 at Revision 1 had to contact Airbus; see also Airbus SBIT [service bulletin information telex] ref. 914.0135/08, dated 03 March 2008. Consequently, AD 2007-0238 was revised to exclude reference to Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 1 and to require accomplishment of the task(s) as described in the original SB A310-53-2124 instead, although retaining the reduced compliance times introduced by AD 2007-0238 at original issue. This new [EASA] AD is published to refer to Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 02, the corrected version that is to be used to meet the requirements of this AD.The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of the frame foot run-outs, which could lead to rupture of the frame foot and cracking in adjacent frames and skin, and which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage. The required actions include inspecting by rotating probe for cracking of holes H1 through H29 on frame (FR) 43 through 46 inclusive, and inspecting holes H1 through H29 on FR 43 through 46 inclusive to determine the edge distance of the hole, and corrective actions if necessary. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
Comments We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. Request To Remove Reference to Modification 13023 From Paragraph (c) of This AD Airbus requests we remove the reference to modification 13023 from paragraph (c), Applicability, of the NPRM. The NPRM would have applied to certain Airbus airplanes, except those on which Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 02, dated May 22, 2008, has been accomplished, or those on which Airbus modification 13023 has been accomplished in production. The commenter, Airbus, states that modification 13023 is a retrofit modification only and was never embodied in production. Modification 13023 is directly associated with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-53-2124. We agree, for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have revised this final rule accordingly. Conclusion We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. 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 required different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this AD will affect about 68 products of U.S. registry. The actions that are required by AD 2006-02-06 and retained in this AD take about 31 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts cost about $1,730 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $4,210 per product. We estimate that it will take about 41 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $4,400 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $522,240, or $7,680 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket. 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 the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 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 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946344 § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14458 (71 FR 3214, January 20, 2006) and adding the following new AD:2009-18-16 Airbus: Amendment 39-16012. Docket No. FAA-2009-0465; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-244-AD.
Effective Date (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 14, 2009. Affected ADs (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-02-06, Amendment 39-14458. Applicability (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324 and -325 airplanes; all serial numbers; certificated in any category; except those airplanes on which Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, dated April 4, 2005, has been accomplished. Subject (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53: Fuselage. Reason (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) states: DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD F-2005-078 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-02-06, Amendment 39-14458, 71 FR 3214, January 20, 2006] to require the modification (Airbus modification 13023), defined in Airbus SB [service bulletin] A310-53-2124, to increase the service life of junctions of center box upper frame bases to upper fuselage arches. This structural modification falls within the scope of the work related to the extension of the service life of A310 aircraft and widespread fatigue damage evaluations. The threshold timescales for accomplishment of the tasks as defined in SB A310-53-2124 were refined and reduced. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2007-0238 to require compliance with Revision 1 of SB A310-53-2124 at the reduced compliance times, superseding (the requirements of) DGAC France AD F-2005-078. Subsequently, Airbus identified reference material that was erroneously introduced into Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 1. As a result, the SB instructions could not be accomplished properly. Operators that tried to apply SB A310-53-2124 at Revision 1 had to contact Airbus; see also Airbus SBIT [service bulletin information telex] ref. 914.0135/08, dated 03 March 2008. Consequently, AD 2007-0238 was revised to exclude reference to Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 1 and to require accomplishment of the task(s) as described in the original SB A310-53-2124 instead, although retaining the reduced compliance times introduced by AD 2007-0238 at original issue. This new [EASA] AD is published to refer to Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 02, the corrected version that is to be used to meet the requirements of this AD.The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of the frame foot run-outs, which could lead to rupture of the frame foot and cracking in adjacent frames and skin, and which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage. The required actions include inspecting by rotating probe for cracking of holes H1 through H29 on frame (FR) 43 through 46 inclusive, and inspecting holes H1 through H29 on FR 43 through 46 inclusive to determine the edge distance of the hole, and corrective actions if necessary.
Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) Except for airplanes identified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, accomplish inspections by rotating probe for cracking of holes H1 through H29 on frame FR 43 through 46 inclusive, and inspections of holes H1 through H29 on FR 43 through 46 inclusive to determine the edge distance of the hole, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 02, dated May 22, 2008 (“the service bulletin”). If no cracking is found and the edge distance is equal to or greater than the distance specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, before further flight, do the cold expansion of the most fatigue sensitive fastener holes, as identified in the service bulletin. (i) Inspect at the applicable time indicated in Table 1 of this AD. Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes with an average flight time (AFT) equal to or less than 3.17 flight hours are short range airplanes. Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes with an AFT exceeding 3.17 flight hours are long range airplanes. (ii) Within 500 flight cycles or 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. Affected Airplanes Inspection/Modification Threshold, whichever occurs later Model A310-304, -322, -324 and -325 short range airplanes Prior to accumulation of 26,500 flight cycles or 74,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 29,200 flight cycles or 81,800 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first. Model A310-304, -322, -324 and -325 long range airplanes Prior to accumulation of 23,400 flight cycles or 117,100 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 25,800 flight cycles or 129,000 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first. Model A310-203, -204, -221, and A310-222 Prior to accumulation of 23,400 flight cycles or 46,800 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 28,800 flight cycles or 57,700 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first.Affected Airplanes | Inspection/Modification Threshold, whichever occurs later | |
Model A310-304, -322, -324 and -325 short range airplanes | Prior to accumulation of 26,500 flight cycles or 74,300 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first | Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 29,200 flight cycles or 81,800 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first. |
Model A310-304, -322, -324 and -325 long range airplanes | Prior to accumulation of 23,400 flight cycles or 117,100 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first | Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 25,800 flight cycles or 129,000 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first. |
Model A310-203, -204, -221, and A310-222 | Prior to accumulation of 23,400 flight cycles or 46,800 flight hours since first flight of the airplane, whichever occurs first | Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, without exceeding 28,800 flight cycles or 57,700 flight hours since first flight, whichever occurs first. |
Category | Rate |
---|---|
Project managers | $100 per hour. |
Technical staff | $75 per hour. |
Company | A | B | Total |
---|---|---|---|
Allocation | 400/500 | 100/500 | |
Amount | 80 | 20 | 100 |
I. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
A. General Background
B. Revisions to the PPE Provisions of the OSHA Standards
C. Discussion of Comments and Hearing Testimony
D. Summary of the Final Rule
II. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Considerations
B. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Federalism
E. State-Plan States
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
III. Authority and Signature
I. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule A. General Background As discussed in a previous Federal Register document (69 FR 68283), OSHA is undertaking a series of projects to update its standards to incorporate the latest versions of national consensus and industry standards. These projects include updating or revoking national consensus and industry standards referenced in existing OSHA standards, updating regulatory text of standards adopted directly by OSHA from the language of outdated consensus standards, and, when appropriate, replacing specific references to outdated national consensus and industry standards with performance-oriented requirements. On May 17, 2007, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (72 FR 27771) entitled “Updating OSHA Standards Based on National Consensus Standards; Personal Protective Equipment.” The NPRM set July 16, 2007, as a deadline for submitting comments and for requesting an informal public hearing on the proposed rule. The Agency received approximately 25 comments and 4 requests for an informal public hearing. OSHA then published a Federal Register notice scheduling an informal public hearing for December 4, 2007 (72 FR 50302). The informal public hearing took place as scheduled, and OSHA received testimony from nine witnesses. Thomas M. Burke, Administrative Law Judge, presided at the hearing. At the end of the hearing, Judge Burke set deadlines of January 3, 2008, for submission of post-hearing comments, and February 4, 2008, for the submission of final summations and briefs. Judge Burke closed and certified the record for this rulemaking on June 23, 2008. B. Revisions to the PPE Provisions of the OSHA Standards 1. Background of OSHA's PPE Standards Subpart I of OSHA's general industry standards contains design requirements for eye- and face-protective devices, head protection, and foot protection. ( See 29 CFR 1910.133, 1910.135, 1910.136.) OSHA has similar requirements in subpart I of part 1915 (Shipyard Employment), subpart E of part 1917 (Marine Terminals), and subpart J of part 1918 (Longshoring). These rules require that the specified PPE comply with national consensus standards incorporated by reference into the OSHA standards, unless the employer demonstrates that a piece of equipment is as effective as equipment that complies with the incorporated national consensus standard. ( See, e.g., 29 CFR 1910.133(b)(1).) 1 These design provisions are part of comprehensive requirements to ensure that employees use PPE that will protect them from hazards in the workplace. 1 The general industry and shipyard employment standards expressly allow employers to use PPE that is as protective as PPE constructed in accordance with the incorporated standards. OSHA uses its de minimis policy to allow employers covered by the longshoring and marine terminals standards to use PPE that is as protective as PPE constructed in accordance with the incorporated standards. (See OSHA Instruction CPL 2.103, “Field Inspection Reference Manual,” Chapter III.C.2.g; and memorandum from Richard Fairfax, Director, Directorate of Enforcement Programs to Regional Administrators (June 19, 2006).) The incorporated ANSI standards are over a decade old and, in some instances, are two decades old. Over this period, ANSI updated all of the standards, and, in one instance ( i.e., the Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946351 ANSI Z41 standard for protective footwear), ANSI withdrew its standard when ASTM adopted a national consensus standard for protective footwear. In response, manufacturers began manufacturing PPE that conforms with the updated ANSI and ASTM standards. As a result, employers and employees have difficulty obtaining PPE manufactured in accordance with the national consensus standards incorporated earlier in OSHA standards. OSHA estimates that these types of PPE last about two to four years. ( See OSHA Docket S-060, “Preliminary Regulatory Impact & Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Personal Protective Equipment Standard,” Table IV-2 (U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, June 30, 1989).) 2. Updating OSHA's PPE Standards In the past, OSHA updated its PPE standards by revising them to incorporate recent versions of the national consensus standards, while leaving the earlier versions of these national consensus standards in the regulatory text. ( See 59 FR 16360 (April 6, 1994).) This action temporarily alleviated the problem of trying to obtain PPE manufactured in accordance with an earlier version of a national consensus standard, but it ensured that the problem would arise again as the later versions of the standards superseded the newly incorporated versions. To alleviate this problem, OSHA proposed to replace the references to specific national consensus standards with a performance-oriented “good-design” requirement. (72 FR 27771.) The proposed rule provided guidance on how employers could meet the good-design requirement. It also included nonmandatory appendices listing those national consensus standards that OSHA had determined were good-design standards that would meet the good-design requirement. To ensure that the appendices remained useful in the future, OSHA promised in the proposal to use direct-final rulemaking to incorporate future editions of consensus standards into the nonmandatory appendices. The proposed rule also deleted older, out-of-date consensus standards that OSHA had incorporated into its standards to allow employers to continue using PPE they had purchased before a specified date. OSHA noted that the proposed rule did not alter the duties of employers because it only provided employers with additional options for meeting their duty under the design-criteria provisions of OSHA's existing PPE standards. The proposed rule also deleted a paragraph in § 1910.94 and another paragraph in § 1910.252, which reference, respectively, specific versions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards on foot protection and eye- and face-protective devices. OSHA explained that, in deleting these references, the relevant design provisions of the general industry PPE standard would apply to these types of PPE. C. Discussion of Comments and Hearing Testimony 1. Updating References to Consensus Standards Commenters universally agreed with OSHA's proposal to update the references to national consensus standards. However, a significant majority, including employee representatives, PPE manufacturers, and safety professionals opposed the proposed replacement of specific references to national consensus standards in the regulatory text with a performance-oriented good-design requirement and a nonmandatory appendix. ( See, e.g., AFL-CIO (OSHA-2007-0044-0023); U.S. Safety (Ex. -0024); International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) (Ex. -0025); American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) (Ex. -0029); see also 3M Company (Ex. -0026) (expressing support for performance-oriented approach, but recommending that appendices be mandatory and that OSHA only list ANSI and ASTM standards as good-design standards at this time).) A few trade associations representing employers generally supported the proposal's performance-oriented approach, but also noted the widespread use of PPE that meets ANSI and ASTM standards and, in one case, the need to ensure that other “good design standards” were developed using a process comparable to the processes ANSI and ASTM use. ( See National Grain and Feed Association and Grain Elevator and Processing Society (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0027); American Bakers Association (Ex. -0028); National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) (Ex. -0047; see, also, International Association of Drilling Contractors (Ex. -0022) (expressing concerns with the proposal, but apparently implicitly endorsing the performance-oriented approach).) Three government agencies commented on the proposal. All three supported updating the out-of-date standards. ( See Kentucky Department of Labor, Office of Occupational Safety and Health (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0021); North Carolina Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Division (Ex. -0034); NIOSH (Ex. -0037)). All witnesses who participated at the hearing testified in opposition to the proposed good-design approach. ( See Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0059.) In general, the commenters noted that the proposal was confusing, ( e.g., AFL-CIO (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0023)), that it removed a “baseline” level of protection from the standards, ( see, e.g., ISEA (Ex. -0025)), that the criteria defining a good-design standard were too vague and subjective, ( see, e.g., ASSE, Tr. at 84-85), and that the proposal could result in less employee protection ( see, e.g., U.S. Safety (Ex. -0024)). In addition, the AFL-CIO asserted that OSHA could alleviate the administrative and practical difficulties associated with outdated national consensus standards by updating the OSHA standards through direct-final rulemaking. ( See Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0023; Tr. 95-96.) OSHA believes that, for the most part, these and other criticisms of the proposal represent a misunderstanding of the proposal or overstate the effects of the proposed good-design requirement. For example, numerous commenters noted that the proposed rule eliminated a baseline level of PPE protection. ( See, e.g., ISEA (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0025) and ASSE (Tr. at 84-85).) These concerns appear to overlook the provision in the proposal that required the PPE to provide protection equivalent to or greater than PPE that was constructed in accordance with one of the national consensus standards listed in the nonmandatory appendices, which included national consensus standards already incorporated into the OSHA standards. ( See, e.g., proposed § 1910.133(b)(2) in 72 FR 27775.) Several commenters expressed concern that allowing employers to select PPE that provided protection equivalent to PPE constructed in accordance with a listed ANSI standard was subject to abuse. ( See ISEA (Tr. at 40-41); ASSE (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0029) and (Tr. at 79).) Although OSHA cannot rule out the possibility that employers could incorrectly claim that PPE constructed in accordance with a non-ANSI design standard provides an appropriate level of protection, the Agency notes that, in the case of the current general industry and shipyard employment PPE provisions, employers could make the same claim. ( See, e.g., 29 CFR 1910.133(b)(2).) Finally, a few commenters remarked that employee protection may decrease because OSHA, at a later date, could approve, for inclusion in the Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946352 nonmandatory appendices, a design standard that did not provide an adequate level of protection. ( See, e.g., ASSE (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0029, and Tr. at 79).) These commenters, however, did not provide a basis for this comment. Moreover, OSHA notes that such action would be counter to its long-standing policy to adopt new requirements only if they provide employees with equivalent or increased protection. In any event, adding a design standard to the nonmandatory appendices would be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. OSHA believes that the widespread opposition to the good-design provision indicates possible misapplication of the standard if adopted as proposed. In addition, the widespread support for continued incorporation of national consensus standards convinces OSHA that using direct-final rulemaking to update references to national consensus standards may alleviate the administrative and practical problems that arise when OSHA standards require compliance with outdated national consensus standards. 2 Accordingly, OSHA is not adopting the proposed good-design approach. 2 OSHA will use the direct-final rulemaking process to update national consensus standards referenced in its PPE standards when it is appropriate to do so ( see, J. Lubbers, A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking, at 115-119 (4th ed. 2006)). Instead, OSHA revised the text of the final rules to allow employers to meet the design requirements of its PPE standards by using PPE constructed in accordance with any of three national consensus standards—the two most recent national consensus standards and the national consensus standard incorporated in the current OSHA standards. Additionally, the final rules maintain the option employers currently have to use PPE that is not manufactured in accordance with one of the listed consensus standards if the employer can demonstrate that the PPE it selects is as protective as PPE constructed in accordance with one of the incorporated consensus standards. The final regulatory text responds to the numerous requests that OSHA continue to incorporate, and require compliance with, specific national consensus standards. ( See, e.g., Tr. at 44-45 and 95-97; Exs. OSHA-2007-0044-0023 and -0048).) 2. Miscellaneous Comments ISEA, in its written comments, recommended that OSHA amend Appendix B to § 1910, subpart I (“Selection Guidelines for Head Protection”) to conform to the recent edition of ANSI Z89.1 ( see Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0025). Beginning with the ANSI Z89.1-1997 standard, ANSI updated the classification system for protective helmets. In this edition and in the subsequent edition, ANSI classified the type and class of protective helmets differently than it did in the current OSHA-incorporated 1986 edition. Consequently, ANSI no longer uses the old designations—Type 1 (hats) and Type 2 (caps). The electrical insulation classifications of Class G (General—tested to 2200V), Class E (Electrical—tested to 20,000V), and Class C (Conductive—no electrical protection) replace former Classes A, B, and C, respectively, to make the designations more user-friendly. Therefore, the Agency is amending paragraph 9 of nonmandatory Appendix B to § 1910, subpart I by adding a discussion clarifying the relationship between the old classification system and the new classification system. A number of commenters and witnesses addressed matters that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For example, several commenters and witnesses recommended that OSHA require third-party certification or independent testing of PPE. ( See Tr. at 83; Exs. OSHA-2007-0044-0031 and -0037.) One commenter asked OSHA to address respirators in this rulemaking (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0003). Other commenters addressed who had responsibility for paying for PPE (Exs. OSHA-2007-0044-0004 and -0034), an issue OSHA resolved in a previous rulemaking ( see 72 FR 64342). Two commenters requested that OSHA supply free national consensus standards to interested parties (Exs. OSHA-2007-0044-0017 and -0020). Regarding this request, OSHA notes that copyright laws protect national consensus standards referenced in its standards, although copies of these national consensus standards are available for viewing only at OSHA's Docket Office, libraries at OSHA Regional Offices, and the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Some commenters (Exs. OSHA-2007-0044-0021 and -0034) and witnesses (Tr. at 18-19 and 51-52) questioned the Agency's decision not to include the construction industry in this rulemaking. OSHA responded at the hearing that it had decided not to include the construction industry because of the size of the undertaking and OSHA's limited resources. (Tr. at 18-19). 3. Deleting Outdated References From Ventilation and Welding Standards OSHA did not receive any comments on its proposal to delete paragraph (a)(5)(v)( a ) in § 1910.94 and paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(I) in § 1910.252, 3 which reference, respectively, specific versions of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards on foot protection and eye- and face-protective devices. 3 The NPRM also requested public comment on (1) its assumption that the proposed revisions would not increase compliance burdens, and (2) whether it should replace these paragraphs with cross references to §§ 1910.136(b) and 1910.133(b). The Agency received no comment on either issue. Paragraph (a)(5)(v)( a ) of § 1910.94 requires that safety shoes used by abrasive-blasting operators comply with ANSI Z41.1-1967, while § 1910.252(b)(2)(ii)(I) specifies that filter lenses and plates used in protective eyewear for welding must comply with the transmission test for radiant energy prescribed in ANSI Z87.1-1968. These references are outdated and, therefore, OSHA is amending these paragraphs so that they are consistent with OSHA's revisions to §§ 1910.133(b) and 1910.136(b). D. Summary of the Final Rule With this rulemaking, OSHA is updating the references to national consensus standards in the PPE sections of its general industry, shipyard employment, longshoring, and marine terminals rules, thereby explicitly allowing employers to use PPE constructed in accordance with the most recent national consensus standards. Numerous comments and hearing testimony persuaded OSHA to leave the references to national consensus standards in the regulatory text of the final standard. In this regard, the Agency decided to allow employers to use any of three editions of the national consensus standards, which consist of the post-1986 editions they must use currently and either of the two most recent editions of these standards. This action is consistent with the notice provided by the NPRM (72 FR 27771). The final regulatory text addresses 3M's written comment that, even though 3M supports the proposal's performance-oriented approach, the proposal's nonmandatory appendix should be mandatory (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0026). Similarly, it is consistent with the recommendation made by several trade associations that employers should be able to comply with their obligations under the proposed rule by continuing to use PPE constructed in accordance with ANSI Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946353 and ASTM standards. ( See National Grain and Feed Association and Grain Elevator and Processing Society (Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0027); American Bakers Association (Ex. -0028); NADA (Ex. -0047); see, also, International Association of Drilling Contractors (Ex. -0022) (stating that OSHA “may wish to consider including International Standards Organization (ISO) standards” to the list of standards in the nonmandatory appendices).) In developing the final rule, the Agency had to decide whether to allow employers to continue using the editions of the national consensus standards currently incorporated in its PPE standards. In this regard, several commenters and witnesses recommended that OSHA delete references to the versions of the national consensus standards that are currently incorporated in the OSHA standards, ( see, e.g., Ex. OSHA-2007-0044-0025; Tr. at 81). However, OSHA received testimony from several witnesses at the hearing that the PPE designed under a previous standard generally remains safe to use even though it may not conform totally with the most recent standard, and that allowing employers to use this PPE would permit them to deplete inventories before they have to purchase new PPE (Tr. at 90 and 140-143). In addition to these comments, OSHA proposed in the NPRM to list these editions in the nonmandatory appendices as examples of national consensus standards that met the proposal's good design requirement, thereby demonstrating OSHA's confidence in the level of employee protection afforded by these national consensus standards. The Agency also noted in the NPRM that the rulemaking would place no economic burden on employers who may still be using PPE constructed in accordance with the currently incorporated editions of the national consensus standards, implying that these employers could continue using this equipment. 4 Therefore, based on the witness testimony and its statements in the NPRM, OSHA is retaining references to post-1986 editions of the national consensus standards currently incorporated in its PPE standards. 4 In the NPRM, OSHA specifically noted that it did not believe that employers were still using PPE constructed in accordance with the ANSI standards that it adopted to allow employers to continue to use PPE they purchased before a specified date, and proposed to delete any reference to these consensus standards from the PPE standards. OSHA received no comments indicating that employers were using such PPE currently. The regulatory text in the final standards also is consistent with OSHA's need to alleviate the administrative and practical problems that arise when current OSHA standards require compliance with outdated national consensus standards and updated national consensus standards are available that would enable employers to use PPE that meets design requirements that would provide employees with an equivalent or increased level of protection. Although the final rule does not alleviate the administrative and practical problems completely, OSHA believes that using direct-final rulemaking will reduce substantially the burden of revising this final regulatory text to incorporate future national consensus standards as ANSI and other standards-development organizations develop them. The safety shoes required by § 1910.94(a)(5)(v)(a) must comply with the updated national consensus standards referenced in § 1910.136(b)(1), while the filter lenses and plates in protective eyewear required by § 1910.252(b)(2) must meet one of the tests for radiant-energy transmission prescribed in the ANSI standards incorporated by the updated § 1910.133(b)(1). OSHA believes these deletions of references to specific outdated consensus standards will not increase compliance burdens, including compliance costs, because it is unlikely that employers are using safety shoes and eyewear manufactured in accordance with ANSI Z41.1-1967 and ANSI Z87.1-1968, respectively. ( See Tr. at 55 (ISEA representative testifying that employers cannot purchase PPE built to the ANSI standards that are currently incorporated in OSHA's standards).) Instead, the Agency presumes that employers are using safety shoes manufactured in accordance with the 1991 or 1999 editions of ASTM F-2412-05 and ASTM F-2413-05, and eyewear that complies with ANSI Z87.1-1989, ANSI 87.1-1989 (R-1998), or ANSI Z87.1-2003. Regarding safety shoes, OSHA believes that shoes constructed according to recent national consensus standards provide an appropriate level of protection, and, moreover, that it is difficult for employers to purchase shoes constructed in accordance with the referenced 1967 national consensus standard. Similarly, although it is feasible to purchase protective eye wear that meets an outdated test, if the protective eye wear meets a subsequent test that provides equivalent or greater protection, it is unnecessarily confusing to explicitly require conformity to an outdated test when meeting a more current test provides the required level of protection. Accordingly, OSHA believes that complying with related OSHA standards ( i.e., §§ 1910.133(b) and 1910.136(b)) will provide employees with the latest PPE technology while also easing employers' compliance obligations. In the final rule, OSHA revised the phrase “filter lens and plates” to “filter lens” to conform to the definitions in the recent ANSI standards. The newly incorporated ANSI standards do not define “plates,” and the definitions of “filter lens” in these standards are broad enough to encompass “plates” as the term was used in § 1910.252(b)(2)(ii)(I) and the 1968 ANSI standard. OSHA does not consider this revision to be substantive. OSHA is retaining in the final rules the proposed provision allowing employers to use PPE not manufactured in accordance with one of the incorporated national consensus standards when the employers meet their burden to demonstrate that the PPE they use provides employee protection that is at least as effective as PPE constructed in accordance with the appropriate incorporated national consensus standard. This provision allows employers to use subsequent national consensus standards that they can demonstrate provide the requisite level of employee protection. Differences in this provision, compared to similar provisions in OSHA's current PPE standards, are editorial only, and do not alter the substantive requirements of the current standards. This rulemaking also deletes the paragraphs in §§ 1910.94 and 1910.252 that reference pre-1970 ANSI standards on foot protection and eye- and face-protective devices, respectively. Instead, employers must comply with §§ 1910.136(b) and 1910.133(b), which consist, respectively, of requirements for foot protection and eye- and face-protective devices newly updated under this rulemaking. Finally, the Agency plans in the future to update the national consensus standards referenced in its PPE standards as new editions become available. Once OSHA determines that a new edition of a national consensus standard provides protection that is equal to or greater than the editions currently incorporated into its PPE standards, the Agency will use appropriate rulemaking, including direct-final rulemaking, to incorporate the new editions, and to remove outdated editions, from the regulatory text. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946354 II. Procedural Determinations A. Legal Considerations The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is to achieve to the extent possible safe and healthful working conditions for all employees. 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. 29 U.S.C. 654(b), 655(b). A safety or health standard is a standard that requires employers to maintain conditions or adopt practices that are reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful working conditions. 29 U.S.C. 652(8). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) of the OSH Act if a significant risk of material harm exists in the workplace and the proposed standard would substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. OSHA already determined that requirements for PPE, including design requirements, are reasonably necessary or appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8). The final rule neither reduces employee protection nor alters an employer's obligations under the existing standard. Under the final rule, employers will be able to continue to use the same equipment they have been using to meet their compliance obligation under the existing standards' design-criteria requirements. The final rule provides employers with additional options for meeting the design-criteria requirement—options most employers already are using. Therefore, this final rule does not alter the substantive protection that must be provided to employees and the compliance burdens on employers. Accordingly, OSHA need not, in this rulemaking, determine significant risk or the extent to which the final rule will reduce that risk, as typically required by Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980). B. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification This action is not economically significant within the context of Executive Order 12866, or a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act or Section 801 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The rulemaking imposes no additional costs on any private or public sector entity, and does not meet any of the criteria for an economically significant or major rule specified by the Executive Order or relevant statutes. This rulemaking allows employers increased flexibility in choosing PPE for employees. However, the final rule does not require an employer to update or replace its PPE solely as a result of this rule if the PPE currently in use meets the existing standards. Furthermore, because the rule imposes no costs, OSHA certifies that it would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This rulemaking does not impose new information collection requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-30. D. Federalism OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for preemption of State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible. Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 667), Congress expressly provides that States may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as “State-Plan States.” (29 U.S.C. 667.) Occupational safety and health standards developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for occupational safety and health standards. While OSHA drafted this final rule to protect employees in every State, Section 18(c)(2) of the Act permits State-Plan States and Territories to develop and enforce their own standards for the design of personal-protective equipment provided these requirements are at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the requirements specified in this final rule. In summary, this final rule complies with Executive Order 13132. In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, this rulemaking limits State policy options in the same manner as other OSHA standards. In State-Plan States, this rulemaking does not significantly limit State policy options because, as explained in the following section, State-Plan States do not have to adopt the final rule. E. State-Plan States When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or amends an existing standard to be more stringent than it was previously, the 26 States or U.S. Territories with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must revise their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary, e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is at least as effective as the new Federal standard or amendment. 29 CFR 1953.5(a). In this regard, the State standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, must be applicable to both the private and public (State and local government employees) sectors, and the States must complete the rulemaking within six months of the publication date of the Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than the existing standard, State-Plan States need not amend their standards, although OSHA encourages them to do so. The 26 States and U.S. Territories with OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming; Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply only to State and local government employees. With regard to this final rule, it will not impose any additional or more stringent requirements on employers compared to existing OSHA standards. Through this rulemaking, OSHA is updating the references in its regulations to recognize recent editions of the applicable national consensus standards, and deleting a number of outdated editions of the national consensus standards referenced in its existing PPE standards. The final rule does not require employers to update or replace their PPE solely as a result of this rulemaking if the PPE currently in Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946355 use meets the existing standards. Therefore, the final rule does not require action under 29 CFR 1953.5(a), and States and U.S. Territories with approved State Plans do not need to adopt this rule or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary. However, to the extent these States and Territories have the same standards as the OSHA standards affected by this final rule, OSHA encourages them to adopt the amendments. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act OSHA reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) and Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093). As discussed above in Section II.B (“Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Certification”) of this preamble, OSHA determined that this final rule imposes no additional costs on any private- or public-sector entity. Accordingly, this final rule requires no additional expenditures by either public or private employers. As noted above under Section II.E (“State-Plan States”), OSHA's standards do not apply to State and local governments except in States that elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this final rule does not meet the definition of a “Federal intergovernmental mandate” ( see Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this final rule does not mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million in any year. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, and 1918 Cutting and brazing, Eye and face protection, Foot protection, Head protection, Incorporation by reference, Ventilation, and Welding. III. Authority and Signature Jordan Barab, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this final rule. OSHA is issuing this final rule pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), and 29 CFR part 1911. Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of August 2009. Jordan Barab, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Amendments to Standards For the reasons stated above in the preamble, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is amending 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915, 1917, and 1918 as follows: PART 1910—[AMENDED] Subpart A—[Amended] 1. Revise the authority citation for subpart A of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable. Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR Part 1911. Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5 U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993). 2. Amend § 1910.6 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(4) b. Revise paragraph (e) introductory text c. Revise paragraphs (e)(60), (e)(61), and (e)(67) through (e)(72) d. Add new paragraphs (e)(73), (74), (75), (76), and (77) e. Revise paragraph (h) introductory text f. Add new paragraphs (h)(20) and (h)(21) The additions and revisions read as follows: § 1910.6 Incorporation by reference. (a) * * * (2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this part and an official historic file of such changes are available for inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20910; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). * * * * * (4) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by private standards organizations are available for purchase from the issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact information listed below for these private standards organizations. In addition, these standards are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone: 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). * * * * * (e) Except as noted, copies of the standards listed below in this paragraph are available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; telephone: 212-642-4900; fax: 212-398-0023; Web site: http://www.ansi.org . * * * * * (60) ANSI Z41-1999, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1910.136(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1999 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org. (61) ANSI Z41-1991, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1910.136(b)(1)(iii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1991 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org. * * * * * (67) ANSI Z87.1-2003, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for §§ 1910.133(b)(1)(i) and 1910.252(b)(2)(ii)(I)( 1 ). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929; or from the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (68) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), American National Standard Practice for Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946356 Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1910.133(b) (1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998) are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929. (69) ANSI Z87.1-1989, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1910.133(b)(1)(iii). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-1989 are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929. (70) ANSI Z88.2-1969, Practices for Respiratory Protection; IBR approved for §§ 1910.94(c)(6)(iii)( a ), 1910.134(c); and 1910.261(a)(3)(xxvi), (b)(2), (f)(5), (g)(15)(v), (h)(2)(iii), (h)(2)(iv), and (i)(4). (71) ANSI Z89.1-2003, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1910.135(b)(1)(i). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (72) ANSI Z89.1-1997, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1910.135(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-1997 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (73) ANSI Z89.1-1986, American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements; IBR approved for § 1910.135(b)(1)(iii). (74) ANSI Z41.1-1967 Men's Safety Toe Footwear; IBR approved for § 1910.261(i)(4). (75) ANSI Z87.1-1968 Practice of Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1910.261(a)(3)(xxv), (d)(1)(ii), (f)(5), (g)(1), (g)(15)(v), (g)(18)(ii), and (i)(4). (76) ANSI Z89.1-1969 Safety Requirements for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1910.261(a)(3)(xxvii), (b)(2), (g)(15)(v), and (i)(4). (77) ANSI Z89.2-1971 Safety Requirements for Industrial Protective Helmets for Electrical Workers, Class B; IBR approved for § 1910.268(i)(1). * * * * * (h) Copies of the standards listed below in this paragraph are available for purchase from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; telephone: 610-832-9585; fax: 610-832-9555; e-mail: s eviceastm.org; Web site: http://www.astm.org : * * * * * (20) ASTM F-2412-2005, Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection; IBR approved for § 1910.136(b)(1)(i). (21) ASTM F-2413-2005, Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1910.136(b)(1)(i). * * * * * Subpart G—[Amended] 3. The authority citation for subpart G of part 1910 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 4. Revise paragraph (a)(5)(v)( a ) of § 1910.94 to read as follows: § 1910.94 Ventilation. (a) * * * (5) * * * (v) * * * ( a ) Protective footwear must comply with the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.136(b)(1). * * * * * Subpart I—[Amended] 5. Revise the authority citation for subpart I of part 1910 to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable. Sections 1910.132, 1910.134, and 1910.138 of 29 CFR also issued under 29 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.133, 1910.135, and 1910.136 of 29 CFR also issued under 29 CFR part 1911 and 5 U.S.C. 553. 6. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1910.133 to read as follows: § 1910.133 Eye and face protection. * * * * * (b) Criteria for protective eye and face protection. (1) Protective eye and face protection devices must comply with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ANSI Z87.1-2003, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; (ii) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or (iii) ANSI Z87.1-1989, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6. (2) Protective eye and face protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as protective eye and face protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. * * * * * 7. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1910.135 to read as follows: § 1910.135 Head protection. * * * * * (b) Criteria for head protection. (1) Head protection must comply with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ANSI Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; (ii) ANSI Z89.1-1997, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or (iii) ANSI Z89.1-1986, “American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6. (2) Head protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as head protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. 8. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1910.136 to read as follows: § 1910.136 Foot protection. * * * * * (b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1) Protective footwear must comply with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ASTM F-2412-2005, “Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection,” and ASTM F-2413-2005, “Standard Specification for Performance Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946357 Requirements for Protective Footwear,” which are incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; (ii) ANSI Z41-1999, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6; or (iii) ANSI Z41-1991, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1910.6. (2) Protective footwear that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as protective footwear that is constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. 9. Add a paragraph at the end of paragraph 9 in Appendix B to subpart I that reads as follows: Appendix B to Subpart I to Part 1910—Non-Mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection * * * * * 9. Selection guidelines for head protection. * * * Beginning with the ANSI Z89.1-1997 standard, ANSI updated the classification system for protective helmets. Prior revisions used type classifications to distinguish between caps and full brimmed hats. Beginning in 1997, Type I designated helmets designed to reduce the force of impact resulting from a blow only to the top of the head, while Type II designated helmets designed to reduce the force of impact resulting from a blow to the top or sides of the head. Accordingly, if a hazard assessment indicates that lateral impact to the head is foreseeable, employers must select Type II helmets for their employees. To improve comprehension and usefulness, the 1997 revision also redesignated the electrical-protective classifications for helmets as follows: “Class G—General”; helmets designed to reduce the danger of contact with low-voltage conductors; “Class E—Electrical”; helmets designed to reduce the danger of contact with conductors at higher voltage levels; and “Class C—Conductive”; helmets that provide no protection against contact with electrical hazards. * * * * * Subpart Q—[Amended] 10. The authority citation for subpart Q of part 1910 continues to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. 11. Revise paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(I) of § 1910.252 to read as follows: § 1910.252 General requirements. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (ii) * * * (I) Filter lenses must meet the test for transmission of radiant energy prescribed by any of the consensus standards listed in 29 CFR 1910.133(b)(1). * * * * * PART 1915—[AMENDED] 12. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as follows: Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. Subpart A—[Amended] 13. Amend § 1915.5 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c). b. Revise paragraph (d)(1) introductory text. c. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) through (d)(1)(ix). c. Add new paragraphs (d)(1)(x), and (d)(1)(xi). d. Add new paragraph (d)(5). The revision and additions read as follows: § 1915.5 Incorporation by reference. * * * * * (b)(1) The standards listed in paragraph (d) of this section are incorporated by reference in the corresponding sections noted as the sections exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in these standards will be published in the Federal Register . The Director of the Federal Register approved these incorporations by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (2) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this part and an official historic file of such changes are available for inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20910; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). (c) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by private standards organizations are available for purchase from the issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact information listed below for these private standards organizations. In addition, these standards are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of these standards at NARA, telephone: 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . Also, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). (d)(1) Except as noted, copies of the standards listed below in this paragraph are available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; telephone: 212-642-4900; fax: 212-398-0023; Web site: http://www.ansi.org . * * * * * (iv) ANSI Z41-1999, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1915.156(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1999 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org . (v) ANSI Z41-1991, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1915.156(b)(1)(iii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1991 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org . (vi) ANSI Z87.1-2003, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1915.153(b)(1)(i). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929; or from the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946358 (vii) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1915.153(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998) are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929. (viii) ANSI Z87.1-1989, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1915.153(b)(1)(iii). (ix) ANSI Z89.1-2003, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1915.155(b)(1)(i). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (x) ANSI Z89.1-1997, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1915.155(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-1997 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (xi) ANSI Z89.1-1986, American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements; IBR approved for § 1915.155(b)(1)(iii). * * * * * (5) Copies of the standards listed below in this paragraph are available for purchase from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; telephone: 610-832-9585; fax: 610-832-9555; e-mail: seviceastm.org; Web site: http://www.astm.org : (i) ASTM F-2412-2005, Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection; IBR approved for § 1915.156(b)(1)(i). (ii) ASTM F-2413-2005, Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1915.156(b)(1)(i). Subpart I—[Amended] 14. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1915.153 to read as follows: § 1915.153 Eye and face protection. * * * * * (b) Criteria for protective eye and face devices. (1) Protective eye and face protection devices must comply with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ANSI Z87.1-2003, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5; (ii) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5; or (iii) ANSI Z87.1-1989, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5. (2) Eye and face protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as protective as eye and face protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. 15. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1915.155 to read as follows: § 1915.155 Head protection. * * * * * (b) Criteria for protective helmets. (1) Head protection must comply with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ANSI Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5; (ii) ANSI Z89.1-1997, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5; or (iii) ANSI Z89.1-1986, “American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5. (2) Head protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as head protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. 16. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1915.156 to read as follows: § 1915.156 Foot protection. * * * * * (b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1) Protective footwear must comply with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ASTM F-2412-2005, “Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection,” and ASTM F-2413-2005, “Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear,” which are incorporated by reference in § 1915.5; (ii) ANSI Z41-1999, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5; or (iii) ANSI Z41-1991, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1915.5. (2) Protective footwear that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as protective footwear that is constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. PART 1917—[AMENDED] 17. Revise the authority citation for part 1917 to read as follows: Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. Subpart A—[Amended] 18. Amend 1917.3 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4). b. Revise paragraph (b) introductory text. c. Revise paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(7). d. Add new paragraphs (b)(8) through (b)(12). e. Add new paragraph (c). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1917.3 Incorporation by reference. (a) * * * (2) The standards listed in paragraph (b) of this section are incorporated by reference in the corresponding sections noted as the sections exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in these standards will be published in the Federal Register . The Director of the Federal Register approved these incorporations by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (3) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this part and an official historic file of such changes are available for inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the Occupational Safety and Health Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946359 Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20910; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). (4) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by private standards organizations are available for purchase from the issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact information listed below for these private standards organizations. In addition, these standards are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, telephone: 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . Also, the material is available for inspection at any Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). (b) Except as noted, copies of the standards listed below in this paragraph are available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; telephone: 212-642-4900; fax: 212-398-0023; Web site: http://www.ansi.org . * * * * * (4) ANSI Z41-1999, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1917.94(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1999 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org. (5) ANSI Z41-1991, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1917.94(b)(1)(iii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1991 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org. (6) ANSI Z87.1-2003, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1917.91(a)(1)(i)(A). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929; or from the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org. (7) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1917.91(a)(1)(i)(B). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998) are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929. (8) ANSI Z87.1-1989, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1917.91(a)(1)(i)(C). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-1989 are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929. (9) ANSI Z89.1-2003, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1917.93(b)(1)(i). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org. (10) ANSI Z89.1-1997, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1917.93(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-1997 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org. (11) ANSI Z89.1-1986, American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements; IBR approved for § 1917.93(b)(1)(iii). (12) ASME B56.1, 1959, Safety Code for Powered Industrial Trucks, pages 8 and 13; IBR approved for § 1917.50(j)(1). (c) Copies of the following standards are available for purchase from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; telephone: 610-832-9585; fax: 610-832-9555; e-mail: seviceastm.org ; Web site: http://www.astm.org : (1) ASTM F-2412-2005, Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection; IBR approved for § 1917.94(b)(1)(i). (2) ASTM F-2413-2005, Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1917.94(b)(1)(i). Subpart E—[Amended] 19. Revise paragraph (a)(1) of § 1917.91 to read as follows: § 1917.91 Eye and face protection. (a)(1)(i) The employer shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective eye and face protection devices that comply with any of the following consensus standards: (A) ANSI Z87.1-2003, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3; (B) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3; or (C) ANSI Z87.1-1989, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3. (ii) Protective eye and face protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as protective eye and face protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. * * * * * 20. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1917.93 to read as follows: § 1917.93 Head protection. * * * * * (b)(1) The employer must ensure that head protection complies with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ANSI Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3; (ii) ANSI Z89.1-1997, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3; or (iii) ANSI Z89.1-1986, “American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3. (2) Head protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as head protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. * * * * * Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946360 21. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1917.94 to read as follows: § 1917.94 Foot protection. * * * * * (b)(1) The employer must ensure that protective footwear complies with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ASTM F-2412-2005, “Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection,” and ASTM F-2413-2005, “Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear,” which are incorporated by reference in § 1917.3; (ii) ANSI Z41-1999, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3; or (iii) ANSI Z41-1991, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1917.3. (2) Protective footwear that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as protective footwear that is constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. PART 1918—[AMENDED] 22. Revise the authority citation for part 1918 to read as follows: Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Orders 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911. Subpart A—[Amended] 23. Amend 1918.3 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4). b. Revise paragraph (b) introductory text. c. Revise paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6). d. Add new paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(11). e. Add new paragraph (c). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 1918.3 Incorporation by reference. (a) * * * (2) The standards listed in paragraph (b) of this section are incorporated by reference in the corresponding sections noted as the sections exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in these standards will be published in the Federal Register. The Director of the Federal Register approved these incorporations by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. (3) Any changes in the standards incorporated by reference in this part and an official historic file of such changes are available for inspection in the Docket Office at the national office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20910; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). (4) Copies of standards listed in this section and issued by private standards organizations are available for purchase from the issuing organizations at the addresses or through the other contact information listed below for these private standards organizations. In addition, these standards are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, telephone: 202-741-6030, or go to http:/www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, the standards are available for inspection at any Regional Office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or at the OSHA Docket Office, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-5627). (b) Except as noted, copies of the standards listed below in this paragraph are available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036; telephone: 212-642-4900; fax: 212-398-0023; Web site: * * * * * (4) ANSI Z41-1999, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1918.104(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1999 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org. (5) ANSI Z41-1991, American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1918.104(b)(1)(iii). Copies of ANSI Z41-1991 are available for purchase only from the National Safety Council, P.O. Box 558, Itasca, IL 60143-0558; telephone: 1-800-621-7619; fax: 708-285-0797; Web site: http://www.nsc.org. (6) ANSI Z87.1-2003, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1918.101(a)(1)(i)(A). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929; or from the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (7) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R-1998), American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1918.101(a)(1)(i)(B). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R1998) are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929. (8) ANSI Z87.1-1989, American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection; IBR approved for § 1918.101(a)(1)(i)(C). Copies of ANSI Z87.1-1989 are available for purchase only from the American Society of Safety Engineers, 1800 East Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018-2187; telephone: 847-699-2929. (9) ANSI Z89.1-2003, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1918.103(b)(1)(i). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-2003 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (10) ANSI Z89.1-1997, American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection; IBR approved for § 1918.103(b)(1)(ii). Copies of ANSI Z89.1-1997 are available for purchase only from the International Safety Equipment Association, 1901 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209-1762; telephone: 703-525-1695; fax: 703-528-2148; Web site: http://www.safetyequipment.org . (11) ANSI Z89.1-1986, American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements; IBR approved for § 1918.103(b)(1)(iii). (c) Copies of the following standards are available for purchase from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; telephone: 610-832-9585; fax: 610-832-9555; e-mail: Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946361 seviceastm.org ; Web site: http://www.astm.org. (1) ASTM F-2412-2005, Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection; IBR approved for § 1917.94(b)(1)(i). (2) ASTM F-2413-2005, Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear; IBR approved for § 1917.94(b)(1)(i). Subpart J—[Amended] 24. Revise paragraph (a)(1) of § 1918.101 to read as follows: § 1918.101 Eye and face protection. (a) * * * (1)(i) Employers must ensure that each employee uses appropriate eye and/or face protection when the employee is exposed to an eye or face hazard, and that protective eye and face devices comply with any of the following consensus standards: (A) ANSI Z87.1-2003, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3; (B) ANSI Z87.1-1989 (R1998), “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3; or (C) ANSI Z87.1-1989, “American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3. (ii) Protective eye and face protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as protective eye and face protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. * * * * * 25. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1918.103 to read as follows: § 1918.103 Head protection. * * * * * (b)(1) The employer must ensure that head protection complies with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ANSI Z89.1-2003, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3; (ii) ANSI Z89.1-1997, “American National Standard for Industrial Head Protection,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3; or (iii) ANSI Z89.1-1986, “American National Standard for Personnel Protection—Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers—Requirements,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3. (2) Head protection devices that the employer demonstrates are at least as effective as head protection devices that are constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. * * * * * 26. Revise paragraph (b) of § 1918.104 to read as follows: § 1918.104 Foot protection. * * * * * (b)(1) The employer must ensure that protective footwear complies with any of the following consensus standards: (i) ASTM F-2412-2005, “Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection,” and ASTM F-2413-2005, “Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear,” which are incorporated by reference in § 1918.3; (ii) ANSI Z41-1999, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3; or (iii) ANSI Z41-1991, “American National Standard for Personal Protection—Protective Footwear,” which is incorporated by reference in § 1918.3. (2) Protective footwear that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective as protective footwear that is constructed in accordance with one of the above consensus standards will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section. [FR Doc. E9-21360 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-PNumber | Date | Event | Sponsor | Location |
---|---|---|---|---|
* * * * * * * | ||||
64. | September 19-20, 2009 | Cambridge Offshore Challenge power boat race | Chesapeake Bay Power Boat Association | The waters of the Choptank River, near Cambridge, Maryland, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the west by the Route 50 Bridge and bounded to the east by a line drawn along longitude 076° W, between Goose Point, MD and Oystershell Point, MD. |
Commodity | Parts per million | Expiration/Revocation Date |
---|---|---|
* * * * * | ||
Cabbage, Chinese, bok choy | 10 | None |
Cabbage, Chinese, napa | 10 | None |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million | Expiration/Revocation Date |
---|---|---|
* * * * * | ||
Corn, field, grain | 1.0 | None |
Corn, pop, grain | 1.0 | None |
* * * * * | ||
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed | 1.0 | None |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Vetch, forage | 1 |
Vetch, hay | 1 |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
Corn, field, grain, postharvest | 200 |
Corn, pop, grain, postharvest | 200 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Barley, bran | 20 |
Barley, flour | 20 |
* * * * * | |
Barley, pearled barley | 20 |
* * * * * | |
Cattle, kidney | 0.5 |
Cattle, liver | 0.5 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, forage | 5 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, stover | 5 |
Corn, pop, stover | 5 |
Corn, sweet, forage | 5 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, sweet, stover | 5 |
* * * * * | |
Goat, kidney | 0.5 |
Goat, liver | 0.5 |
* * * * * | |
Hog, kidney | 0.5 |
Hog, liver | 0.5 |
Horse, kidney | 0.5 |
Horse, liver | 0.5 |
* * * * * | |
Oat, flour | 20 |
* * * * * | |
Oat, groats/rolled oats | 20 |
* * * * * | |
Poultry, kidney | 0.5 |
Poultry, liver | 0.5 |
* * * * * | |
Sheep, kidney | 0.5 |
Sheep, liver | 0.5 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, bran | 20 |
Wheat, flour | 20 |
Wheat, germ | 20 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, middlings | 20 |
Wheat, shorts | 20 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Peppermint, tops | 0.5 |
* * * * * | |
Spearmint, tops | 0.5 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, grain | 0.25 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.25 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Cabbage, Chinese, bok choy | 0.01 |
Cabbage, Chinese, napa | 0.01 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
Alfalfa, forage | 10 |
Alfalfa, hay | 10 |
* * * * * | |
Cabbage, Chinese, bok choy | 5 |
Cabbage, Chinese, napa | 5 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, forage | 10 |
Corn, field, grain | 0.1 |
Corn, field, stover | 10 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.1 |
Corn, pop, stover | 10 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, sweet, forage | 10 |
Corn, sweet, stover | 10 |
* * * * * | |
Peppermint, tops | 2 |
* * * * * | |
Spearmint, tops | 2 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million | Expiration/Revocation date |
---|---|---|
* * * * * | ||
Corn, field, forage (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates) | 25 | 12/31/09 |
Corn, field, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates) | 0.2 | 12/31/09 |
Corn, field, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates) | 25 | 12/31/09 |
Corn, pop, grain (of which no more than 0.1 ppm is carbamates) | 0.2 | 12/31/09 |
Corn, pop, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates) | 25 | 12/31/09 |
Corn, sweet, forage (of which no more than 5 ppm are carbamates) | 25 | 12/31/09 |
* * * * * | ||
Corn, sweet, stover (of which no more than 5 ppm is carbamates) | 25 | 12/31/09 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
Alfalfa, forage | 40 |
Alfalfa, hay | 40 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, forage | 0.02 |
Corn, field, grain | 0.02 |
Corn, field, stover | 0.02 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.02 |
Corn, pop, stover | 0.02 |
Corn, sweet, forage | 0.02 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, sweet, stover | 0.02 |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Peppermint, tops | 2 |
* * * * * | |
Spearmint, tops | 2 |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Grass, rangeland, forage | 0.1 |
Grass, rangeland, hay | 0.1 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, grain | 0.1 |
Corn, field, stover | 0.1 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.1 |
Corn, pop, stover | 0.1 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Clover, forage | 0.2 |
Clover, hay | 0.2 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million | Expiration/revocation date |
---|---|---|
* * * * * | ||
Wheat, bran | 0.10 | 12/31/08 |
Wheat, flour | 0.10 | 12/31/08 |
Wheat, germ | 0.10 | 12/31/08 |
* * * * * | ||
Wheat, middlings | 0.10 | 12/31/08 |
Wheat, shorts | 0.10 | 12/31/08 |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, forage | 50.0 |
Corn, field, grain | 0.02 |
Corn, field, stover | 50.0 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.02 |
Corn, pop, stover | 50.0 |
Corn, sweet, forage | 50.0 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, sweet, stover | 50.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Potato, chips | 4.0 |
Potato, granules, flakes | 4.0 |
* * * * * | |
Potato, wet peel | 4.0 |
* * * * * | |
Tomato, paste | 3.0 |
Tomato, puree | 3.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
Barley, bran | 1.0 |
Barley, flour | 1.0 |
* * * * * | |
Barley, pearled barley | 1.0 |
* * * * * | |
Oat, flour | 1.0 |
* * * * * | |
Oat, groats, rolled oats | 1.0 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, bran | 1.0 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, flour | 1.0 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, germ | 1.0 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, middlings | 1.0 |
Wheat, shorts | 1.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Cotton, refined oil | 0.2 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Barley, bran | 12 |
* * * * * | |
Barley, pearled barley | 12 |
* * * * * | |
Grass, forage | 500.0 |
Grass, hay | 500.0 |
* * * * * | |
Peppermint, tops | 3.0 |
* * * * * | |
Spearmint, tops | 3.0 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, bran | 12 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, germ | 12 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, middling | 12 |
Wheat, shorts | 12 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Tomato, paste | 1.0 |
Tomato, puree | 1.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Tomato, dry pomace | 5.0 |
Tomato, wet pomace | 5.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
Corn, field, forage | 0.06 |
Corn, field, grain | 0.06 |
Corn, field, stover | 0.06 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.06 |
Corn, pop, stover | 0.06 |
Corn, sweet, forage | 0.06 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, sweet, stover | 0.06 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, forage | 3.0 |
Corn, field, grain | 0.05 |
Corn, field, stover | 5.0 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.05 |
Corn, pop, stover | 5.0 |
Corn, sweet, forage | 3.0 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, sweet, stover | 5.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Grape, dried pomace | 10.0 |
* * * * * | |
Grape, wet pomace | 10.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Apple, dry pomace | 3.0 |
Apple, wet pomace | 3.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, forage | 0.10 |
Corn, field, grain | 0.02 |
Corn, field, stover | 0.10 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.02 |
Corn, pop, stover | 0.10 |
Corn, sweet, forage | 0.10 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, sweet, stover | 0.10 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, grain | 0.1 |
Corn, field, stover | 0.1 |
* * * * * | |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.1 |
Corn, pop, stover | 0.1 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Corn, field, grain | 0.03 |
Corn, field, stover | 0.03 |
Corn, pop, grain | 0.03 |
Corn, pop, stover | 0.03 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million | |
---|---|---|
* * * * * | ||
Grape, dried pomace | 5.0 | |
* * * * * | ||
Grape, wet pomace | 5.0 | |
* * * * * | ||
Lettuce, head | 3.5 | |
Lettuce, leaf | 3.5 | |
* * * * * | ||
Tomato, dry pomace | 4.0 | |
* * * * * | ||
Tomato, wet pomace | 4.0 | |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Apple, dry pomace | 2.0 |
Apple, wet pomace | 2.0 |
* * * * * | |
Grape, dried pomace | 15.0 |
* * * * * | |
Grape, wet pomace | 15.0 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Apple, dry pomace | 3.0 |
Apple, wet pomace | 3.0 |
* * * * * | |
Nut, tree, group 14 | 0.1 |
* * * * * | |
Pistachio | 0.1 |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
Cattle, fat | 0.1 |
Cattle, meat | 0.08 |
Cattle, meat byproducts | 0.08 |
Goat, fat | 0.1 |
Goat, meat | 0.08 |
Goat, meat byproducts | 0.08 |
Hog, fat | 0.1 |
Hog, meat | 0.08 |
Hog, meat byproducts | 0.08 |
Horse, fat | 0.1 |
Horse, meat | 0.08 |
Horse, meat byproducts | 0.08 |
* * * * * | |
Sheep, fat | 0.1 |
Sheep, meat | 0.08 |
Sheep, meat byproducts | 0.08 |
Commodity | Parts per million | |
---|---|---|
* * * * * | ||
Apple, dry pomace | 0.5 | |
Apple, wet pomace | 0.5 | |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
Cattle, fat | 0.40 |
Cattle, liver | 0.10 |
Cattle, meat | 0.04 |
Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver | 0.04 |
* * * * * | |
Goat, fat | 0.40 |
Goat, liver | 0.10 |
Goat, meat | 0.04 |
Goat, meat byproducts, except liver | 0.04 |
* * * * * | |
Horse, fat | 0.40 |
Horse, liver | 0.10 |
Horse, meat | 0.04 |
Horse, meat byproducts, except liver | 0.04 |
* * * * * | |
Sheep, fat | 0.40 |
Sheep, liver | 0.10 |
Sheep, meat | 0.04 |
Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver | 0.04 |
Commodity | Parts per million | |
---|---|---|
Apple, dry pomace | 1.0 | |
Apple, wet pomace | 1.0 | |
* * * * * |
Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Wheat, bran | 0.15 |
Wheat, flour | 0.15 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, germ | 0.15 |
* * * * * | |
Wheat, middlings, | 0.15 |
Wheat, shorts | 0.15 |
* * * * * |
In estimating residues in processed commodities EPA used empirical processing factors obtained from the processing studies, where available; maximum theoretical concentration factors of 8.0 for the processed commodities of wheat bran and wheat germ and 1.4 for wheat flour; and DEEM 7.81 default-processing factors were used for the remaining processed commodities.
iii. Cancer . As explained in Unit II.A., EPA has concluded that the chronic risk assessment will be protective of the precursor events that have led to cancer effects in animal studies. Therefore, a separate quantitative dietary exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk was not conducted. iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated . The Agency did not use anticipated residue or percent crop treated (PCT) in the dietary assessment for pendimethalin. The assumption of 100% CT and tolerance level residues was made for all registered and proposed food commodity uses of pendimethalin. 2. Dietary exposure from drinking water . The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for pendimethalin in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of pendimethalin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm . Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of pendimethalin were estimated. Modeled estimates of drinking water were entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, the concentration values of pendimethalin are estimated to be 6.0 ppb for surface water and 0.036 ppb for ground water. 3. From non-dietary exposure . The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Pendimethalin is currently registered for the following residential non-dietary sites: Recreational and residential turf (including home lawns, golf courses, athletic fields, etc.) and ornamentals. EPA assessed residential exposure based on applications to residential turf (i.e., home lawns), since this use is expected to result in the greatest residential exposure. There is a potential for short-term exposure of homeowners applying products containing pendimethalin on home lawns. There is also a potential for short-term post-application exposure of adults and children entering lawn and Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946380 recreation areas previously treated with pendimethalin. Exposures from treated recreational sites are expected to be similar to, or lower than, those from treated residential turf sites; therefore, a separate exposure assessment for recreational turf sites was not conducted. EPA assessed exposures from the following residential turf post-application scenarios: i. Adult and toddler post-application dermal exposure from contact with treated lawns. ii. Toddlers' incidental ingestion of pesticide residues on lawns from hand-to-mouth transfer. iii. Toddlers' object-to-mouth transfer from mouthing of pesticide-treated turfgrass. iv. Toddlers' incidental ingestion of soil from pesticide-treated residential areas. The post-application risk assessment was conducted in accordance with the Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and recommended approaches of the EPA Health Effects Division's (HED's) Science Advisory Council for Exposure (ExpoSAC). 4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity . Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found pendimethalin to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and pendimethalin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that pendimethalin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative . D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. In general . Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor. 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity . The Agency concluded there is potential for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity (thyroid) in developing offspring resulting from exposure to pendimethalin. There was no indication of prenatal and/or postnatal qualitative or quantitative increased susceptibility in the developmental studies in rats and rabbits or the 2-generation reproduction studies in rats. However, because developmental LOAELs for thyroid toxicity could not be determined in the developmental studies, the Agency has requested developmental thyroid toxicity data, in order to determine potential thyroid toxicity following prenatal and/or postnatal exposure to pendimethalin. 3. Conclusion . Based on the following considerations, EPA has determined that the FQPA safety factor should be retained for the subchronic and chronic thyroid endpoints: i. The toxicity database for pendimethalin is not complete. Based on the hormonal changes (alterations in thyroid weights and histopathological lesions) observed in several studies following oral administration of pendimethalin, it is likely that pendimethalin may cause disruption in the endocrine system. There is concern that perturbation of thyroid homeostasis may lead to hypothyroidism and possibly result in adverse effects on the developing nervous system. Consequently, EPA has recommended that a developmental thyroid assay be conducted to evaluate the impact of pendimethalin on thyroid hormones, structure, and/or thyroid hormone homeostasis during development. This study has not yet been submitted. In accordance with 40 CFR part 158 toxicology data requirements, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies and an immunotoxicity study are required for pendimethalin. However, since there was no evidence of neurotoxic clinical signs, changes in brain weight, or histopathology of the nervous system in any study with pendimethalin, the Agency determined that an additional factor for database uncertainties is not needed to account for lack of these data. Additionally, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the available pendimethalin toxicity data to determine whether an additional database uncertainty factor is needed to account for potential immunotoxicity. There are no indications in the available studies that organs associated with immune function, such as the thymus and spleen, are affected by pendimethalin, and pendimethalin does not belong to a class of chemicals (e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be immunotoxic. ii. There was no indication of pendimethalin neurotoxicity in subchronic or chronic toxicity studies and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity. iii. There was no indication of prenatal and/or postnatal qualitative or quantitative increased susceptibility in the developmental studies in rats and rabbits or the 2-generation reproduction studies in rats. However, the developmental studies in rats and rabbits were not adequate to determine the potential for thyroid toxicity during development. Consequently, there is concern for potential increased sensitivity or susceptibility in offspring regarding thyroid effects, and, as discussed above, a developmental thyroid toxicity study has been required. iv. The available studies do not indicate potential immunotoxicity and pendimethalin does not belong to the class of compounds (e.g., the organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) that would be expected to be toxic to the immune system. Based on the available data the immunotoxicity is not expected to provide a Point of Departure (POD) lower than that currently used for overall risk assessments. Therefore, at this time a database uncertainty factor is not needed for the lack of these studies. v. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The chronic food exposure assessments are considered to be highly conservative, as they assume that all crops registered and proposed have residues at tolerance-level. The drinking water estimates were derived from conservative screening models. The residential exposure assessment utilizes reasonable high-end variables set out in EPA's Residential Exposure SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures). The aggregate assessment is based upon reasonable high-end residential exposure assumptions, and is also not likely to under estimate exposure to any subpopulation, including those comprised of infants and children. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946381 Although the exposure estimate is very conservative and there are no neurotoxic concerns for pendimethalin, there is sufficient uncertainty regarding thyroid effects, particularly thyroid effects in the young, that EPA is retaining the 10X FQPA safety factor for all subchronic and chronic exposures whose endpoint is based on thyroid effects. Pendimethalin has not been shown to cause acute effects. EPA has also determined that the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for interspecies variation may be reduced to 3X for these subchronic and chronic exposures, since it has been established that rats are more susceptible to thyroid effects than humans. These factors, together with the traditional 10X uncertainty factor to account for intraspecies variation, result in a total uncertainty factor of 300X (10X, 3X and 10X). E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded. 1. Acute risk . An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, pendimethalin is not expected to pose an acute risk. 2. Chronic risk . Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to pendimethalin from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of pendimethalin is not expected. 3. Short-term risk . Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pendimethalin is currently registered for use(s) that could result in short-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to pendimethalin. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 650 for adult males and 580 for adult females. The aggregate exposure estimate for children results in a total MOE of 350 at an application rate (to residential turf) of 2 lbs active ingredient/Acre (ai/A), and a total MOE of 340 for an application rate of 3 lbs ai/A. As the level of concern is for MOEs that are lower than 300, these MOEs are not of concern. 4. Intermediate-term risk . Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pendimethalin is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to pendimethalin through food and water, which has already been addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk. 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population . As explained in Unit II.A., the chronic risk assessment is considered to be protective of any cancer effects. 6. Determination of safety . Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues. IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology, liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS), is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; e-mail address: residuemethods@epa.gov . B. International Residue Limits There are currently no established or proposed Codex or Canadian Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pendimethalin. Mexico has established MRLs (expressed as pendimethalin per se) for several crops but none for olives. V. Conclusion Therefore, a tolerance is established for combined residues of pendimethalin, [ N -(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], including its metabolites and degradates, in or on olive at 0.1 ppm. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only pendimethalin [ N -(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine] and its metabolite 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin, in or on the commodity. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .) do not apply. This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946382 of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). VII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register . This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 1, 2009. Lois Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. Section 180.361 is amended by revising the introductory text to paragraph (a) and adding alphabetically an entry for “olive” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 180.361 Pendimethalin; tolerance for residues. (a) General . Tolerances are established for the combined residues of pendimethalin, [ N -(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], including its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is to be determined by measuring only pendimethalin, [ N -(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine] and its metabolite 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol expressed as the stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities. * * * * * Olive 0.1 * * * * *Commodity | Parts per million |
---|---|
* * * * * | |
Olive | 0.1 |
* * * * * |
Pre-ban crossing activations per accident (approximate) | Post-ban crossing activations per accident (approximate) | |
---|---|---|
FEC w/Ban | 289,000 | 96,000 |
FEC No Ban | 135,000 | 162,000 |
CSX No Ban | 40,000 | 62,000 |
Average Rate Increase = ((89 FEC No Ban Grade Crossings * 23% increase in their accident rate) + (224 Comparable CSX Grade Crossings * 67% increase in their accident rate))/313 Total CSX and FEC No Ban Crossings
Accordingly, the average nighttime accident rate increase for the group of 313 public highway-rail grade crossings, comprised of comparable CSX grade crossings and FEC No Ban grade crossings was 54.5 percent during the post-ban study period.
These distinct nighttime accident rate increases, which occurred during the post-ban study period at the 224 comparable CSX grade crossings and 89 FEC No Ban grade crossings, were not incorporated into FRA's calculation of the 195-percent nighttime accident rate increase at FEC grade crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans. Therefore, FRA has revised its previous estimate of the impact of nighttime whistle bans during the post-ban period on FEC grade crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans by “backing out” any effect related to a generalized increase in general crossing risk in the region. As discussed above, the comparison sets chosen were FEC No Ban grade crossings and comparable CSX grade crossings, and the study period and selection criteria were the same as for the FEC grade crossings that were subject to nighttime whistle bans. It was observed that collisions at FEC grade crossings subject to nighttime whistle bans increased 195 percent during the post-ban study period (from a constructive value of 100, representing the total of pre-ban accidents, to 295, the sum of the prior level and the increase), while FEC No Ban grade crossings and comparable CSX grade crossings in the control group increased 54.5 percent (from a constructive base value of 100, representing the total of prior accidents, to 154.5). The percentage of increase required to achieve 295 from the 154.5 base for the control group is approximately 90.9 percent (e.g., .909 * 154.5 = 140.441, and 140.441 + 154.5 = 294.941). Thus, FRA concludes that a good measure of the increase in collision risk from silencing the train horn in the region is on the order of 90.9 percent. FRA is aware that many changes have occurred in the region since the period in question. These include engineering improvements, demographic changes, increases in road traffic levels, and likely some improvements in public education and awareness related to crossing safety. Many of these changes apply to FEC crossings that are currently subject to EO 15 and to crossings not so affected. There is no particular reason to believe, however, that—as to the differential risk involved—the 90.9 percent estimate would not be valid. FRA is cognizant of the fact that the FEC bans were nighttime-only bans and that 24-hour quiet zones may be sought in the future. FRA has no body of information that would permit it to apply a different excess risk estimate in connection with 24-hour bans. Engineering improvements are the principal means used by communities under Part 222 to achieve risk reduction and quality for quiet zones. So far as FRA is aware, engineering improvements are equally effective regardless of time of day. Indeed, communities along the FEC line will benefit in terms of qualifying for quiet zones for many locations where lengthy medians and other arrangements are in place. Improvements that have been made in the interim on the CSX/Tri-Rail corridor, including simple four-quadrant gate arrangements, show how success can be fully achieved. Although FRA might speculate that 24-hour effects are less dramatic (e.g., because motorists expect the horn to sound, and it does not sound for a portion of the day), FRA has no empirical basis to do this. To the extent that we err, we err in favor of the safety objectives behind the legislation giving rise to FRA's regulation on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. III. Rescission of FRA Emergency Order No. 15 On the effective date of this final rule, EO 15 will be rescinded and the provisions of this part will apply to highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line. Therefore, locomotive horn sounding will continue to be required at all public highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line that are not located within Federal quiet zones. In addition, as of the effective date of this final rule, locomotive horn sounding at public highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line will have to be conducted in accordance with the requirements contained in section 222.21 of this part. As discussed in the preamble to the interim final rule, FEC submitted comments noting that FRA's proposed regulation did not address its intended effect on pre-existing restrictions on the sounding of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings that remain on the books. While FEC explained that it assumed that all local ordinances preempted by EO 15 would remain null and void when FRA's regulation on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings is made applicable to all highway-rail grade crossings within the State of Florida, FEC requested that FRA specifically address the status of impacted crossings in the final rule so as to avoid any confusion among former whistle ban jurisdictions. Unlike EO 15, the provisions contained within this part only have a limited preemptive effect on State laws governing the use of locomotive audible Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946389 warning devices other than the locomotive horn at public highway-rail grade crossings. As reflected in section 222.21(e) of this part, FRA regulations do not require the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices other than the locomotive horn at public highway-rail grade crossings. However, if State law requires the sounding of a locomotive audible warning device other than the locomotive horn at public highway-rail grade crossings, then the requirements contained in subsections (b) and (d) of section 222.21 of this part will apply to the sounding of the locomotive audible warning device. In addition, as of the effective date of this final rule, the provisions contained within this part will have limited preemptive effect on State laws governing the use of train borne audible warnings at private highway-rail grade crossings, as well as pedestrian grade crossings. For example, section 222.45 prohibits routine locomotive horn sounding at private highway-rail grade crossings and pedestrian grade crossings located within duly established Federal quiet zones. FRA regulations do not, however, require the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at private highway-rail grade crossings or pedestrian grade crossings. Only if State law requires the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at private highway-rail grade crossings or pedestrian grade crossings will the requirements set forth in this part apply. 2 2 If State law requires locomotive horn sounding at private highway-rail grade crossings or pedestrian grade crossings, the requirements contained in section 222.21 of this part will apply. However, if State law requires the sounding of a locomotive audible warning device other than the locomotive horn at private highway-rail grade crossings or pedestrian grade crossings, then the requirements of subsections (b) and (d) of section 222.21 of this part will apply to the sounding of that locomotive audible warning device. In the preamble to the interim final rule, FRA discussed the types of quiet zones (i.e., New Quiet Zone versus Pre-Rule Quiet Zone) that could be established by public authorities seeking to restrict routine locomotive horn sounding at highway-rail grade crossings which are currently subject to EO 15. As stated in the preamble, since the authorizing Florida statute and related local ordinances that imposed nighttime whistle bans at certain FEC crossings were not enforced or observed on October 9, 1996, and no quiet zones containing FEC crossings had been established as of that date pursuant to the procedures set forth in the EO 15 amendments, public authorities who wish to establish Federal quiet zones that include highway-rail grade crossings currently subject to EO 15 will not be able to qualify for Pre-Rule Quiet Zone status. Therefore, any public authority seeking to establish a Federal quiet zone that contains any highway-rail grade crossing currently subject to EO 15 will need to comply with the requirements for New Quiet Zones (or New Partial Quiet Zones) contained in 49 CFR Part 222. On or after the effective date of this final rule, public authorities will, however, be authorized to implement wayside horns at public highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates, pursuant to the requirements contained within this part, as an alternative to the audible warning provided by routine sounding of the locomotive horn. 3 FRA acknowledges that, when EO 15 was issued, FRA was not prepared to endorse the implementation of wayside horns at highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line as an acceptable substitute for routine sounding of the locomotive horn. However, subsequent to the issuance of EO 15, a number of studies were conducted on the effectiveness of wayside horn installations, the results of which indicated that the use of wayside horns at highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates has merit under certain well-defined conditions. 4 In addition to a significant reduction in noise impacts on the surrounding community when compared to routine locomotive horn sounding practices, these studies revealed that the implementation of wayside horn systems at highway-rail grade crossings equipped with active warning devices does not appear to degrade safety after routine locomotive horn sounding practices have been discontinued. FRA also notes that, in its comments on the NPRM and interim final rule, FDOT expressed support for the use of wayside horns in certain instances where it is impossible or impracticable to install supplementary safety measures. While FRA does not agree that the use of wayside horns should be limited to situations where the implementation of supplementary safety measures would be impractical or impossible, based on the results of studies that evaluated the effectiveness of wayside horn installations, the provisions of part 222 which address the implementation of wayside horn systems will apply to highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line as of the effective date of this final rule. 3 A wayside horn system typically consists of horns mounted on poles that are placed at the highway-rail grade crossing. A horn is directed towards each direction of oncoming vehicular traffic. The system is activated by the same track circuits used to detect the train's approach for purposes of other automated warning devices at the crossing (flashing lights and gates) and produces an audible warning similar to warning provided by an approaching train. 4 A detailed discussion of the studies that were conducted on the effectiveness of wayside horn system installations can be found in FRA's Interim Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (68 FR 70586, 70607-70609). IV. Section-By-Section Analysis Appendix G—Excess Risk Estimates for Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Appendix G has been added to this part to establish a 90.9-percent excess risk estimate for public highway-rail grade crossings that are located along the FEC line. The excess risk estimate is a figure that represents the amount by which collision frequency has been estimated to increase when routine locomotive horn sounding is restricted at public highway-rail grade crossings. Please refer to the previous section titled, “Calculation of the 90.9-Percent Excess Risk Estimate for Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Along the FEC Line”, for more information about the calculations that were used to derive the excess risk estimate for public highway-rail grade crossings located along the FEC line. Appendix G only provides an excess risk estimate for public FEC crossings that are equipped with flashing lights and gates. FRA has not provided excess risk estimates for passive FEC crossings or public FEC crossings that are only equipped with flashing lights because public authorities will only be permitted to establish New Quiet Zones (or New Partial Quiet Zones) on the FEC line. As stated in section 222.35(b), all public highway-rail grade crossings located in New Quiet Zones or New Partial Quiet Zones must be equipped with active grade crossing warning devices comprising both flashing lights and gates. Public authorities who are interested in establishing a New Quiet Zone (or New Partial Quiet Zone) on the FEC line are advised to use FRA's Quiet Zone Calculator, which can be accessed from FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov . FRA's Quiet Zone Calculator will automatically apply the 90.9-percent excess risk estimate to public highway-rail grade crossings along the FEC line. The calculator can be used as a tool by public authorities for determining which combination of Supplementary Safety Measures and Alternative Safety Measures (if any) will be necessary to reduce their Quiet Zone Risk Index to an acceptable level for quiet zone establishment (i.e., the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946390 or the Risk Index With Horns). Please refer to Appendix C of this part for a detailed guide to the establishment of quiet zones under this part. Appendix H—Schedule of Civil Penalties The former Appendix G to this part has been redesignated as Appendix H. No other revisions have been made to this Appendix. V. Regulatory Impact A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This final rule has been evaluated and determined not to be a “significant regulatory action”, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, nor a “significant regulation” under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures order issued by DOT (44 FR 11034). FRA has determined that this final rule will have a minimal cost impact with positive net benefits. Under this final rule, locomotive horn sounding will continue to be required at public grade crossings along the FEC line, unless the public authority decides to include the public grade crossing within a Federal quiet zone. Due to the voluntary nature of quiet zone establishment, Florida cities and counties will establish quiet zones only if the quiet zone benefits exceed the costs. FRA estimates that this rule will potentially affect the 72 governmental jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, etc.) that are located along the FEC line. Of these 72 jurisdictions, the municipalities most likely to be affected are the 15 cities and seven counties listed below that had whistle bans during the 1980s and early 1990s, who may wish to re-impose restrictions on routine locomotive horn sounding at grade crossings through the establishment of Federal quiet zones. Dade County 7/29/1984 1 City of Hollywood 11/11/1984 1 City of Daytona Beach 11/12/1984 1 City of South Daytona 11/19/1984 1 City of New Smyrna Beach 1/7/1985 1 Martin County 1/21/1985 1 City of Fort Lauderdale 3/4/1985 1 City of Hallandale 7/1/1985 1 City of Wilton Manors 8/12/1985 1 City of Pompano Beach 9/9/1985 1 City of Deerfield Beach 11/27/1985 1 City of Oakland Park 3/20/1986 1 Indian River County 2/25/1987 1 City of Port Orange 6/4/1988 1 St. Lucie County 8/1/1988 1 St. Johns County 9/27/1988 1 Palm Beach County 3/25/1989 1 City of Sebastian 7/14/1989 1 City of Ormond Beach 10/9/1989 1 City of Holly Hill 11/4/1989 1 Brevard County 11/27/1989 1 City of Edgewater 1/29/1990 1 Subtotal 9 6 7 22 Percentage 41% 27% 32% 100%Municipality | Effective date | Small city | Large city | County | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dade County | 7/29/1984 | 1 | |||
City of Hollywood | 11/11/1984 | 1 | |||
City of Daytona Beach | 11/12/1984 | 1 | |||
City of South Daytona | 11/19/1984 | 1 | |||
City of New Smyrna Beach | 1/7/1985 | 1 | |||
Martin County | 1/21/1985 | 1 | |||
City of Fort Lauderdale | 3/4/1985 | 1 | |||
City of Hallandale | 7/1/1985 | 1 | |||
City of Wilton Manors | 8/12/1985 | 1 | |||
City of Pompano Beach | 9/9/1985 | 1 | |||
City of Deerfield Beach | 11/27/1985 | 1 | |||
City of Oakland Park | 3/20/1986 | 1 | |||
Indian River County | 2/25/1987 | 1 | |||
City of Port Orange | 6/4/1988 | 1 | |||
St. Lucie County | 8/1/1988 | 1 | |||
St. Johns County | 9/27/1988 | 1 | |||
Palm Beach County | 3/25/1989 | 1 | |||
City of Sebastian | 7/14/1989 | 1 | |||
City of Ormond Beach | 10/9/1989 | 1 | |||
City of Holly Hill | 11/4/1989 | 1 | |||
Brevard County | 11/27/1989 | 1 | |||
City of Edgewater | 1/29/1990 | 1 | |||
Subtotal | 9 | 6 | 7 | 22 | |
Percentage | 41% | 27% | 32% | 100% | |
Note 1: Cities that were later covered under a county whistle ban ordinance are not listed here. | |||||
Note 2: A small city is one that has a population of less than 50,000 people (according to the SBA). | |||||
Source: FRA Report “Florida's Train Whistle Ban” (October 1995); U.S. Census Bureau. |
Category | Total (undiscounted) |
---|---|
Small Cities | $549,000 |
Large Cities | 840,000 |
Counties | 6,104,000 |
Grand Total Costs | 7,493,000 |
Number | Municipality | County | Effective date of whistle ban | 2000 Census population | 2006 Population Estimates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | City of Hypoluxo * | Palm Beach | 9/24/1984 | 2,015 | 2,596 |
2 | Village of Tequesta * | Palm Beach | 10/23/1984 | 5,273 | 5,942 |
3 | City of South Daytona | Volusia | 11/19/1984 | 13,177 | 13,541 |
4 | Town of Lantana * | Palm Beach | 1/7/1985 | 9,437 | 10,334 |
5 | City of New Smyrna Beach | Volusia | 1/7/1985 | 20,048 | 22,732 |
6 | Town of Jupiter * | Palm Beach | 1/29/1985 | 39,328 | 48,847 |
7 | City of Lake Worth * | Palm Beach | 2/15/1985 | 35,133 | 35,980 |
8 | City of Hallandale | Broward | 7/1/1985 | 34,282 | 39,372 |
9 | City of Wilton Manors | Broward | 8/12/1985 | 12,697 | 12,909 |
10 | City of Oakland Park | Broward | 3/20/1986 | 30,966 | 42,384 |
11 | City of Fort Pierce ** | St. Lucie | 6/28/1986 | 37,516 | 39,365 |
12 | Town of Malabar *** | Brevard | 4/13/1988 | 2,622 | 2,743 |
13 | City of Titusville *** | Brevard | 5/20/1988 | 40,670 | 44,027 |
14 | City of Sebastian | Indian River | 7/14/1989 | 16,181 | 20,255 |
15 | City of Ormond Beach | Volusia | 10/9/1989 | 36,301 | 38,504 |
16 | City of Holly Hill | Volusia | 11/4/1989 | 12,119 | 13,325 |
17 | City of Edgewater | Volusia | 1/29/1990 | 18,668 | 21,486 |
* These cities were later covered under the Palm Beach County Ordinance (effective date of 3/25/89). | |||||
** These cities were later covered under the St. Lucie County Ordinance (effective date of 3/1/88). | |||||
*** These cities were later covered under the Brevard County Ordinance (effective date of 11/27/89). | |||||
Source: FRA Report “Florida's Train Whistle Ban” (October 1995); U.S. Census Bureau. |
[Summary table] | |
Warning type | Excess risk estimate |
---|---|
Nation (Except Florida East Coast Railway and Chicago Region Crossings) | |
Passive | 74.9. |
Flashers only | 30.9. |
Flashers with gates | 66.8. |
Florida East Coast Railway Crossings | |
Flashers with gates | 90.9. |
Chicago Region Crossings | |
Passive | To be determined. |
Flashers only | To be determined. |
Flashers with gates | To be determined. |
General Electric Company (GE): Docket No. FAA-2009-0502; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-02-AD.
Comments Due Date (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by November 9, 2009. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD applies to GE CJ610 series turbojet and CF700 series turbofan engines with AFT Technologies combustion liner, part number (P/N) AFT-5016T30G02, installed. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Learjet Inc. model 24 series and model 25 series airplanes, Dassault Aviation Fan Jet Falcon series airplanes, and Sabreliner Corporation NA-265-70 and NA-265-80 series airplanes. Unsafe Condition (d) This AD results from a report of an AFT Technologies combustion liner that released a large section of the inner combustion liner and reports of six combustion liners with premature cracks. We are proposing this AD to prevent premature cracks in the combustion liner, which could release pieces of the inner combustion liner. A release of pieces of the inner combustion liner could cause an uncontained failure of the engine turbine and damage to the airplane. Compliance (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. Replacement of AFT Technologies Combustion Liner P/N AFT-5016T30G02 (f) For engines that have an AFT Technologies combustion liner, P/N AFT-5016T30G02, with fewer than 200 hours-since-new (HSN) or 300 cycles-since-new (CSN), remove the AFT Technologies combustion liner, P/N AFT-5016T30G02, before exceeding 200 HSN or 300 CSN, whichever occurs first. (g) For engines that have an AFT Technologies combustion liner, P/N AFT-5016T30G02, with 200 HSN or more or 300 CSN or more, remove the AFT Technologies combustion liner, P/N AFT-5016T30G02, within 15 hours-in-service or 10 cycles-in-service, after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. (h) After the effective date of this AD, don't install any AFT Technologies combustion liner, P/N AFT-5016T30G02, in any engine. Alternative Methods of Compliance (i) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information (j) Contact Norman Perenson, Aerospace Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; e-mail: norman.perenson@faa.gov ; telephone (516) 228-7337; fax (516) 794-5531, for more information about this AD. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 2, 2009. Peter A. White, Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9-21629 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P• Team I—Program Integrity Issues
• Team II—Foreign School Issues
We received many comments suggesting that we negotiate issues related to the student loan programs authorized under Title IV of the HEA. As we anticipate the need to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee following the completion of pending legislative action related to student loans, we will not be including student loan issues on the agenda at this time. Many of those who testified and those who provided written comments made the case for changes to bankruptcy rules as they relate to student loans; some also called for changes in statutes of limitations and loan refinancing rules. While those issues are important, addressing them would require action by Congress. We also received comments suggesting revisions to the institutional financial responsibility regulations for Title IV, HEA institutional eligibility. We agree that this is an area where changes may be beneficial. However, significant analysis must be done by the Department before we can bring this issue to a committee for negotiation. We will be beginning this process in the near future. More information about the public aspects of this process will be forthcoming on the Department's Web site. We list the topics each committee is likely to address during this round of negotiations elsewhere in this notice under Committee Topics . We intend to select negotiators for the committees that represent the interests significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiations. In so doing, we will follow the requirement in section 492(b)(1) of the HEA that the individuals selected must have demonstrated expertise or experience in the relevant subjects under negotiation. We will also select individual negotiators who reflect the diversity among program participants, in accordance with section 492(b)(1) of the HEA. Our goal is to establish committees that will allow significantly affected parties to be represented while keeping the committee size manageable. The committees may create subgroups on particular topics that would involve additional individuals who are not members of the committees. Individuals who are not selected as members of the committees will be able to attend the meetings, have access to the individuals representing their constituencies, and participate in informal working groups on various issues between the meetings. The committee meetings will be open to the public. The Department has identified the following constituencies as having interests that are significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiations. The Department plans to seat as negotiators individuals from organizations or groups representing each of these constituencies. The Department anticipates that individuals from organizations or groups representing each of these constituencies will participate as members of one or more committees as appropriate. These constituencies are: • Students. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946400 • Legal assistance organizations that represent students. • Consumer advocacy organizations. • Financial aid administrators at postsecondary institutions. • Business officers and bursars at postsecondary institutions. • Admissions officers at postsecondary institutions. • Institutional third-party servicers who perform functions related to the Title IV programs (including collection agencies). • State higher education executive officers. • State Attorneys General and other appropriate State officials. • Business and industry. • Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under Title III, Parts A and B, and Title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, and other institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in Title III of the HEA. • Two-year public institutions of higher education. • Four-year public institutions of higher education. • Private, non-profit institutions of higher education. • Private, for-profit institutions of higher education. • Guaranty agencies and guaranty agency servicers (including collection agencies). • Lenders, secondary markets, and loan servicers. • Regional accrediting agencies. • National accrediting agencies. • Specialized accrediting agencies. • State approval agencies. • State student grant agencies. • State agencies addressing secondary education. • Private secondary schools. • Home schools for secondary education. • Foreign institutions. • Governmental entities overseeing public foreign institutions. • Clinical sites of foreign medical institutions located in the United States (for Team II—Foreign School Issues, Issues specific to foreign medical schools). • State agencies that certify clinical sites of foreign medical institutions in the United States (for Team II—Foreign School Issues, Issues specific to foreign medical schools). The negotiation of proposed regulations for issues specific to foreign medical schools on the Team II agenda requires some specific constituencies who are affected parties for purposes of these issues only. For these issues, we will be selecting “single-issue negotiators” whose participation on the committee will be limited to the negotiation of only the issues specific to foreign medical schools. As previously noted, the committee may form subgroups for preliminary discussions of these, or other, issues to include individuals who are not members of the committee but who have expertise that would be helpful. The goal of each committee is to develop proposed regulations that reflect a final consensus of the committee. Consensus means that there is no dissent by any member of the negotiating committee. An individual selected as a negotiator will be expected to represent the interests of their organization or group. If consensus is reached, all members of the organization or group represented by a negotiator are bound by the consensus and are prohibited from commenting negatively on the resulting proposed regulations. The Department will not consider any such negative comments that are submitted by members of such an organization or group. Nominations should include: • The name of the nominee, the organization or group the nominee represents, and a description of the interests that the nominee represents. • Evidence of the nominee's expertise or experience in the subject, or subjects, to be negotiated. • Evidence of support from individuals or groups of the constituency that the nominee will represent. • The nominee's commitment that he or she will actively participate in good faith in the development of the proposed regulations. • The nominee's contact information, including address, phone number, fax number, and e-mail address. For a better understanding of the negotiated rulemaking process, nominees should review The Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title IV Regulations, Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html prior to committing to serve as a negotiator. Committee Topics The topics the committees are likely to address are as follows: Team I—Program Integrity Issues • Satisfactory academic progress. • Monitoring grade point averages. • Incentive compensation. • Gainful employment in a recognized occupation. • State authorization as a component of institutional eligibility. • Definition of a credit hour. • Verification of information included on a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). • Definition of a high school diploma for purposes of establishing eligibility to participate in Federal student aid programs. • Misrepresentation of information provided to students and prospective students. • Ability to benefit. • Agreements between institutions of higher education. • Retaking coursework. • Term-based module programs. • Institutions required to take attendance for purposes of the Return of Title IV Funds requirements. • Timeliness and method of disbursement of Title IV funds. Team II—Foreign School Issues • United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) financial statements (section 493(b) of the HEOA). • Compliance audits (section 493(b) of the HEOA). • Definition of a foreign school. • Non-profit status for foreign schools. • Public foreign schools and financial responsibility. • Consolidation of select Title IV requirements on a countrywide basis. • Deferments for eligible non-citizens. • Non-degree programs. • Issues specific to foreign medical schools: ○ New eligibility criteria for foreign medical schools (section 102(a)(1)(B) and (b) of the HEOA). ○ Clinical sites of foreign medical schools in other countries. ○ Basic science locations of foreign medical schools in other countries. • Eligibility requirements for foreign veterinary schools. • Eligibility requirements for foreign nursing schools (sections 102(a)(1)(A) and (D) of the HEOA). • Foreign medical and veterinary schools certified separately from larger school. These topics are tentative. Topics may be added or removed as the process continues. Schedule for Negotiations We anticipate that negotiations for these committees will begin at the end of October 2009, with each committee Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946401 meeting for three sessions of approximately five days at roughly monthly intervals. Meetings will start on a Monday at 1:00 and end on a Friday at noon. The committees will meet in the Washington, DC area. The dates and locations of these meetings will be posted on the Department's Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2009/negreg-summerfall.html . The schedule for these negotiations has been developed to ensure publication of the final regulations by the November 1, 2010 statutory deadline for publishing Title IV, HEA student financial assistance final regulations. Electronic Access to This Document You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html . Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a. Delegation of Authority: The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to Daniel T. Madzelan, Director, Forecasting and Policy Analysis for the Office of Postsecondary Education, to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. Dated: September 3, 2009. Daniel T. Madzelan, Director, Forecasting and Policy Analysis. [FR Doc. E9-21695 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-PAccordingly, it is hereby Ordered
I. Until December 17, 2017, Andrew Ward Freyer with an address at: 54325 Oak I-Jill, La Quinta, CA, 92253, and when acting for or on behalf of Freyer, his representatives, assigns, agents, or employees, (collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Denied Person”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations. II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control; C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. III. After notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Andrew Freyer by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order. IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology. V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 17, 2017. VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Freyer may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations. VII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to Freyer. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register . Issued this 1st day of September 2009. Bernard Kritzer, Director, Office of Exporter Services. [FR Doc. E9-21633 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-MAccordingly, it is hereby Ordered:
I. Until February 8, 2013, Bertrand Lalsingh with an address at: 4252 Stirling Rd., Hollywood, FL 33021, and when acting for or on behalf of Lalsingh, his representatives, assigns, agents, or employees, (collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Denied Person”) may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to: A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document; B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations. II. No person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following: A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations; B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control; C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States; D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing. III. After notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Bertrand Lalsingh by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order if necessary to prevent evasion of the Order. IV. This Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the Regulations are the foreign produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology. V. This Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until February 8, 2013 VI. In accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Lalsingh may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations. VII. A copy of this Order shall be delivered to Lalsingh. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register . Issued this 31st day August 2009. Bernard Kritzer, Director, Office of Exporter Services. [FR Doc. E9-21634 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DT-MAll comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leneta Gregorie, at the address identified above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal to renew the following currently approved collections of information: 1. Title: Activities and Investments of Insured State Banks. OMB Number: 3064-0111. Form Numbers: None. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Affected Public: Insured State nonmember banks. Estimated Number of Respondents: 110. Estimated Time per Response: 8 hours. Total Annual Burden: 880 hours. General Description of Collection: With certain exceptions, section 24 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831a) limits the direct equity investments of state chartered banks to equity investments that are permissible for national banks. In addition, the statute prohibits an insured state bank from directly engaging as principal in any activity that is not permissible for a national bank or indirectly through a subsidiary in an activity that is not permissible for a subsidiary of a national bank unless the bank meets its minimum capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity does not pose significant risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund. The FDIC can make such a determination for exception by regulation or by order. The FDIC's implementing regulation for section 24 is 12 CFR part 362. It details the activities that insured state nonmember banks or their subsidiaries may engage in, under certain criteria and conditions, and identifies the information that banks must furnish to the FDIC in order to obtain the FDIC's approval or non-objection. 2. Title: Mutual-to-Stock Conversions of State Savings Banks. OMB Number: 3064-0117. Form Numbers: None. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Affected Public: Insured State chartered savings banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System proposing to convert from mutual to stock form of ownership. Estimated Number of Respondents: 10. Estimated Time per Response: 50 hours. Total Annual Burden: 500 hours. General Description of Collection: Sections 303.161 and 333.4 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations require State savings banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System to file with the FDIC a notice of intent to convert to stock form and to provide copies of documents filed with State and Federal banking and/or securities regulators in connection with the proposed conversion. Request for Comment Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record. Dated at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of September, 2009. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E9-21689 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-PLicense Number: 018529F.
Name: Egbert Sylvester Jeffers dba Eggi's Express Shipping.
Address: 1004 Halsey Street, Brooklyn, NY 11207.
Date Revoked: August 27, 2009.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
License Number: 020818N.
Name: Logistics Inc. dba Logistics W.W. Inc. dba Infinity Freight Services.
Address: 8621 Bellanca Ave., Ste. 104B, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
Date Revoked: August 23, 2009.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
License Number: 020141N.
Name: Vanguard International, Inc.
Address: 117 Lakewood Circle, San Mateo, CA 94402.
Date Revoked: August 27, 2009.
Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.
Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing. [FR Doc. E9-21678 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-PLicense No. | Name/Address | Date reissued |
---|---|---|
018606N | All Merit Express, Inc., 19702 Miguel Ave., Cerritos, CA 90703 | August 17, 2009. |
016258N | International Freight Consolidators, Inc., 1160 N.W. 21st Terrace, Miami, FL 33127 | July 30, 2009. |
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants:
Waterview Logistics LLC, 2948 Shore Drive, Merrick, NY 11566. Officers: Thomas Leibman, Managing Member (Qualifying Individual), Joshua Liebman, Member.
Acher and Chex International, LLC dba A & C International, 123 Polaris Drive, Walkersville, MD 21793. Officer: Nchekwube O. Udeze, President (Qualifying Individual).
Oceanbridge Logistics, Inc., 9080 Telstar Ave., Ste. 329, El Monte, CA 91731. Officers: Xinyu Aka Mike Chen, President (Qualifying Individual), Ying Chen, Secretary.
WWT America LLC, 730 Del Oro Drive, Safety Harbor, FL 34695. Officer: Carlos F. Diaz, Member (Qualifying Individual).
Expedia Shippers & Logistics, Inc., 331 West 57th Street, Ste. 270, New York, NY 10019. Officer: Carlito Deleon, President (Qualifying Individual).
Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants:
Continental Shipping Group, Inc., 670 S. 21st Street, Irvington, NJ 07111. Officer: Katarzyna Strojwas, Vice President (Qualifying Individual).
RLE International, Inc., 10101 Easy Bay Harbor Drive, Ste. 608, Bay Harbor, FL 33154. Officers: Ligia Estrada, President (Qualifying Individual), Rene J. Perez, Vice President.
Beagle Shipping Inc., 2801 Northwest 74th Ave., Ste. N-12, Miami, FL 33122. Officers: Marilyn Gutierrez, Corporate Secretary (Qualifying Individual), Ricardo J. Tovar, President.
Above & Beyond Freight Management, LLC, 600 Bayview Ave., Inwood, NY 11096. Officers: Patricia E. Noll, COO (Qualifying Individual), Andrew Redman, CEO.
New York Logistic Services, Inc., dba Global American Line, 3470 Rand Road, South Plainfield, NJ 07080. Officers: Ali Wajid, Sr. Vice President, Hussaini Syed Hamid, CEO, Maati Mohamed Abouel, President (Qualifying Individuals).
Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants:
CJ GLS America, Inc., 5801 S. Malt Ave., Commerce, CA 90040. Officer: Shung Chul Jhun, Secretary (Qualifying Individual), Choon W. Leem, Chairman.
Streamline Logistics Limited Liability Company, 2025 E. Linden Ave., Linden, NJ 07035. Officer: Damian C. Mbadugha, Member (Qualifying Individual).
Falcon Global Edge, Inc., 88 Black Falcon Ave., Ste. 315, Boston, MA 02210. Officer: Gary Erickson, Dir. Of Marine Operations (Qualifying Individual).
Dated: September 3, 2009. Tanga S. FitzGibbon, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E9-21683 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P21 CFR Section | No. of Respondents | Annual Frequency per Response | Total Annual Responses | Hours per Response | Total Hours |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25.15(a) and (d) | 3,171 | 3.37 | 10,686 | 8 | 85,488 |
25.40(a) and (c) | 20 | 1 | 20 | 3,400 | 68,000 |
Total | 153,488 | ||||
1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. |
21 CFR Section | No. of Respondents | Annual Frequency per Response | Total Annual Responses | Hours per Response | Total Hours |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25.15(a) and (d) | 40 | 1.7 | 68 | 3 | 204 |
25.40(a) and (c) | 24 | 1.9 | 45 | 210 | 9,450 |
Total | 9,654 | ||||
1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. |
21 CFR Section | No. of Respondents | Annual Frequency per Response | Total Annual Responses | Hours per Response | Total Hours |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25.15(a) and (d) | 39 | 1 | 39 | 6 | 234 |
25.40(a) and (c) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Total | 235 | ||||
1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. |
21 CFR Section | No. of Respondents | Annual Frequency per Response | Total Annual Responses | Hours per Response | Total Hours |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25.15(a) and (d) | 210 | 1.76 | 370 | 8 | 2,960 |
25.40(a) and (c) | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3,400 | 6,800 |
Total | 9,760 | ||||
1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. |
21 CFR Section | No. of Respondents | Annual Frequency per Response | Total Annual Responses | Hours per Response | Total Hours |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25.15(a) and (d) | 65 | 10.4 | 676 | 5 | 3,380 |
25.40(a) and (c) | 6 | 1.3 | 8 | 2,160 | 17,280 |
Total | 20,660 | ||||
1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. |
Total | 193,797 |
and,
OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Fax Number: (202) 395-6974. Dated: August 31, 2009. Michelle Shortt, Director, Regulations Development Group, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs. [FR Doc. E9-21674 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-PMedical Devices Panels | Approximate Date Needed |
---|---|
Dental Products Panel | November 1, 2009 |
General Hospital and Personal Use Devices Panel | January 1, 2010 |
Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel | March 1, 2010 |
Immunology Devices Panel | March 1, 2010 |
Ophthalmic Devices Panel | November 1, 2009 |
For general information : Doreen Brandes, Office of the Commissioner (HF-4), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 14C-3, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-8858, email: doreen.brandes@fda.hhs.gov .
For specific committee questions , contact the following persons listed in table 1 of this document.
Geretta P. Wood, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1682, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5550, or e-mail Geretta.Wood@fda.hhs.gov Certain Device Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee Normica Facey, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4652, Silver Spring, MD 20993, e-mail: Normica.Facey@fda.hhs.gov National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory CommitteeContact Person | Committee/Panel |
---|---|
Geretta P. Wood, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 1682, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5550, or e-mail Geretta.Wood@fda.hhs.gov | Certain Device Panels of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee |
Normica Facey, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4652, Silver Spring, MD 20993, e-mail: Normica.Facey@fda.hhs.gov | National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee |
Number of respondents | Annual responses | × | Hours per response | = | Burden hours | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reporting Burden | 30 | 1 | 0.50 | 15 |
Number Of respondents | Annual responses | x | Hours Per response | = | Burden Hours | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reporting burden | 128 | 1 | 26 | 3,328 |
Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at ak.blm.conveyance@ak.blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunication device (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management. Dina L. Torres, Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Resolution Branch. [FR Doc. E9-21662 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JA-PT. 142 N., R. 84 W., 5th P. M.
Sec. 32: N 1/2 NW 1/4 , SW 1/4 NW 1/4 , NW 1/4 SW 1/4 .
The 160-acre tract, located in Oliver County, North Dakota, contains an estimated 3.0 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. The tract averages 10.0 feet in thickness with an average overburden depth of 75 feet, 6,669 BTU per pound in heating value, 7.75 percent ash, and 0.88 percent sulfur content. The tract will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount provided that the high bid meets or exceeds the BLM's estimate of the fair market value of the tract. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. The minimum bid is not intended to represent fair market value. The fair market value will be determined by the authorized officer after the sale. The sealed bids should be sent by certified mail, return-receipt requested, or be hand delivered to the Cashier, BLM Montana State Office, at the address given above and clearly marked “Sealed Bid for NDM 97633 Coal Sale—Not to be opened before 11 a.m. October 15, 2009.” The cashier will issue a receipt for each hand-delivered bid. Bids received after 10 a.m. will not be considered. If identical high bids are received, the tying high bidders will be requested to submit follow-up sealed bids until a high bid is received. All tie-breaking sealed-bids must be submitted within 15 minutes following the sale official's announcement at the sale that identical high bids have been received. Prior to lease issuance, the high bidder, if other than the applicant, must pay to the BLM the cost recovery fees in the amount of $21,756 in addition to all processing costs the BLM incurs after the date of this sale notice (43 CFR 3473.2). A lease issued as a result of this offering will provide for payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction thereof, and a royalty payable to the United States of 12.5 percent of the value of coal mined by surface methods and 8.0 percent of the value of coal mined by underground methods. Bidding instructions for the tracts offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are included in the Detailed Statement of Lease Sale. Copies of the statement and the proposed coal lease are available at the Montana State Office. Casefile NDM 97633 is also available for public inspection at the Montana State Office. Phillip C. Perlewitz, Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals. [FR Doc. E9-21663 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P• Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 6 to 8 p.m., Los Banos, California
• Thursday, September 24, 2009, 6 to 8 p.m., Merced, California
Written comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR should be sent by October 9, 2009. ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be held at: • Los Banos: Miller & Lux Building, 830 6th Street. • Merced: Merced Fairgrounds Rock House Facility, 900 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Send written comments to Ms. Margaret Gidding, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, MP-170, Sacramento, CA 95825 or via e-mail at reach4b@restoresjr.net. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margaret Gidding at the above address, by telephone at 916-978-5461, TDD 916-978-5608 or via fax at 916-978-5469. Additional information is available online at http://www.restoresjr.net. If special assistance is required at the scoping meetings, please contact Ms. Margaret Gidding at the above phone or fax numbers or via e-mail at mgidding@usbr.gov no less than ten working days prior to the meetings. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Proposed Action includes improving conveyance capacity in Reach 4B of the San Joaquin River to ensure conveyance of at least 475 cfs, modifying the Eastside and Mariposa bypass channels to establish a low flow channel, and modifying structures in the Eastside and Mariposa bypasses to provide for fish passage. The following are the applicable Settlement Paragraphs related to the Proposed Action: • Paragraph 11(a)(3) stipulates channel modifications to Reach 4B to ensure conveyance of at least 475 cfs. • Paragraph 11(a)(4) stipulates modifications to the San Joaquin River headgates at the upstream end of Reach 4B to ensure fish passage and enable flow routing into Reach 4B. • Paragraph 11(a)(5) stipulates modifications to the Sand Slough Control Structure to ensure fish passage. • Paragraph 11(a)(8) stipulates modifications to structures in the Eastside and Mariposa bypass channels to provide anadromous fish passage on an interim basis until a final flow routing is selected and completed. • Paragraph 11(a)(9) stipulates modifications in the Eastside and Mariposa bypass channels to establish a suitable low-flow channel, if the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Restoration Administrator, determines that such modifications are necessary to support anadromous fish migration through these channels. Because the functions of these channels are interrelated, the design, environmental compliance, and construction are being addressed as one Proposed Action. The planning and environmental review for the Proposed Action is authorized under Section 3406(c)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), (Pub. L. 102-575) and the San Joaquin River Restoration Act (SJRRA), included in Public Law 111-11. Construction of the Proposed Action is authorized under Section 10004 of the SJRRA (Pub. L. 111-11). The Proposed Action would be implemented consistent with both the Settlement and the SJRRA, Public Law 111-11. San Joaquin River Restoration Program In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of the long-term water service contracts between the United States and the Central Valley Project Friant Division Contractors. After more than 18 years of litigation known as NRDC, et al., v. Kirk Rodgers, et al., the NRDC, Friant Water Users Authority, and the Departments of the Interior and Commerce (Settling Parties) reached agreement on the terms and conditions of the San Joaquin River Settlement (Settlement) which was subsequently approved by the Court on October 23, 2006. The Settlement can be found online at http://www.restoresjr.net. The Settlement is based on two parallel Goals: • The Restoration Goal —To restore and maintain fish populations in “good condition” in the main stem of the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, including naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish; and • The Water Management Goal —To reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to all of the Friant Division long-term Contractors that may result from the Interim Flows and Restoration Flows provided for in the Settlement. The Settling Parties acknowledge that accomplishing the Goals requires planning, implementation, and funding of certain activities, such as environmental review, design, and construction. With regard to the Restoration Goal, the Settlement calls for a combination of channel and structural improvements along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, releases of additional water from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, and the reintroduction of spring and/or fall-run Chinook salmon. The Settlement states that the Secretary of the Interior shall implement the terms and conditions of the Settlement. Additionally, the Settling Parties agreed that implementation of the Settlement shall also require participation of the State of California. Therefore, concurrent with the execution of the Settlement, the Settling Parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California, by and through the California Resources Agency, DWR, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), regarding the State's role in the implementation of the Settlement. The program established to implement the Settlement is the SJRRP, and the “Implementing Agencies” responsible for the management of the SJRRP include Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), DWR, and DFG. The Federal Implementing agencies (Reclamation, USFWS and NMFS) are authorized to implement the Settlement under the SJRRA included in Public Law 111-11. A Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (PEIS/EIR) is currently being developed for implementation of the SJRRP. If applicable, the EIS/EIR for the Proposed Action will supplement, tier from, incorporate by reference, or adopt relevant NEPA analyses from the PEIS/EIR. The Record of Decision for the PEIS/EIR is anticipated to be signed in 2010. Public Disclosure Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: July 13, 2009. Mike Chotkowski, Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Region. [FR Doc. E9-21717 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MN-PWe considered all of these comments, and incorporated many of them into the varied alternatives in the draft CCP/EA.
CCP Actions We Are Considering, Including the Service-Preferred Alternative We developed three management alternatives based on the purposes for establishing the refuge; its vision and goals; and the issues and concerns of the public, State agencies, and the Service that arose during the planning process. The alternatives share some actions in common, such as protecting and restoring the refuge shoreline and tidal marsh habitats, protecting nesting bald eagles and the federally listed Delmarva fox squirrel, controlling invasive plants, encouraging research that benefits our resource decisions, protecting cultural resources, distributing refuge revenue sharing payments to Kent County, supporting the Friends of Eastern Neck, and promoting the refuge volunteer program. Other actions distinguish the alternatives. The draft CCP/EA describes the alternatives in detail, and relates them to the issues and concerns. Highlights follow. Alternative A (Current Management) This alternative is the “No Action” alternative required by NEPA. Alternative A defines our current management activities, and serves as the baseline for comparing the other alternatives. We would continue to focus our habitat management on protecting the refuge shoreline and restoring tidal marsh habitats in partnership with others. We would also manage cropland on 557 acres, moist soil units on 28 acres, and green tree reservoirs on 38 acres. We would continue to protect 708 acres of mature mixed forest and treat invasive plants as our funding and staffing allow. Our biological monitoring and inventory program would continue at its current levels, focusing on surveys of breeding and wintering birds. Our visitor services programs would not change; we would continue to facilitate opportunities for fishing, hunting, observing and photographing wildlife, and participating in environmental education and interpretation programs. We would maintain, but not expand, the facilities to support those activities. The seasonal closures in some areas would continue to protect nesting or wintering birds. We would continue to station three permanent staff at Eastern Neck NWR, and access to all refuge complex staff would continue to be available as needed. Alternative B (Emphasis on Tidal Wetlands and Waterfowl; the Service-Preferred Alternative) This alternative is the one we propose as the best way to manage Eastern Neck NWR over the next 15 years. It includes an array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, works best toward achieving the refuge purposes, our vision and goals, and the goals of other State and regional conservation plans. We also believe it most effectively addresses the key issues raised during the planning process. The highest priority of the biological program in alternative B would be to protect the refuge shoreline and tidal marsh. We plan to work with partners to create additional breakwaters and restore 108 acres of native tidal marsh. We would consolidate our cropland management program into 372 acres in fewer, larger fields to increase their use by waterfowl. We would also improve migratory habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and marsh birds by creating up to four new moist soil units on 21 acres. As in alternative A, we would continue to monitor refuge forests and wetlands for invasive plants, and make treating them a priority. We would expand our biological monitoring and inventory program, and regularly evaluate its results to help us better understand the implications of our management actions and identify ways to improve their effectiveness. We would expand our support of compatible research programs, and Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946458 would encourage the use of the refuge to demonstrate restoration and best adaptive management practices. We would enhance opportunities for all six priority public uses, and emphasize two of them—wildlife observation and photography. We would seek new partnerships, such as those with environmental educators, to encourage their use of the refuge as a living laboratory and help us improve our programs. The seasonal closures in some areas would continue to protect nesting or wintering birds. Outreach and Service visibility on the refuge and in the local community would improve. We would station two additional staff at Eastern Neck NWR, but, as in alternative A, access to all refuge complex staff would continue to be available as needed. Alternative C (Emphasis on Tidal Wetlands and Forest Habitat) As in alternatives A and B, the highest priority in alternative C is to protect and restore the refuge shoreline and tidal marsh. However, its emphasis on managing forest habitat in the refuge uplands to benefit forest-dependent species distinguishes it from alternatives A and B. We would eliminate the cropland program, and would not construct new moist soil units. Instead, we would allow those lands to revert through natural succession to forest, and intervene with treatments when necessary to ensure that a native, healthy, diverse forest results. We would not begin any other significant new inventorying or monitoring, except established protocols when required by mandates on Federal trust species or when recommended by the Regional biologist. We would permit compatible research programs requested by our partners on refuge lands, but would limit our involvement. As in alternative B, we would encourage the use of the refuge to demonstrate restoration and best adaptive management practices. Under alternative C, we would offer more visitor services programs and build more infrastructure than in alternatives A or B. We would open for public access the areas previously closed to protect wintering waterfowl. The suitability of those areas for waterfowl would diminish greatly as they revert to forest. We would improve our programs for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography. We would hold teacher workshops, become actively involved in developing local school programs using the refuge, and promote senior education programs. We would consider a new trail and boat launch at the south end of the island, and would expand the turkey hunt by opening it to adult hunters for a limited time. As in alternative B, we would improve Service outreach and visibility, and station two new staff at the refuge. Public Meetings We will give the public opportunities to provide input at one public meeting in Rock Hall, Maryland. You can obtain the schedule from the project leader or natural resource planner (see addresses or FOr Further Information CONTACT , above). You may also submit comments at any time during the planning process, by any means shown in the ADDRESSES section. Public Availability of Comments Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Dated: August 7, 2009. Salvatore M. Amato, Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035. [FR Doc. E9-21737 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-PDocuments pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Vernal Field Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information and/or to have your name added to the mailing list, contact Stephanie Howard by telephone: (435) 781-4469; or e-mail: Stephanie_Howard@blm.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides notice that the BLM Field Office, Vernal, Utah intends to prepare an EIS for the Greater Chapita Wells project and announces the beginning of the scoping process and seeks public input on issues and planning criteria. The Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas Infill Project Area (GCWPA) consists of 42,027 acres in a developed gas-producing area, located approximately 30 miles southeast of Vernal and 12 miles east of Ouray, Utah. The GCWPA is located in the Uinta Basin in Uintah County. The GCWPA includes 32,823 acres (78 percent) of Federal lands administered by the BLM; 1,914 acres (five percent) of State lands administered by the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration; 6,727 acres (16 percent) of Northern Ute Tribal and allotted lands administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 563 acres (one percent) of privately owned lands. EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG) plans to drill up to 7,028 new infill natural gas wells to fully develop all currently known productive formations beneath EOG's leased acreage. EOG proposes to drill wells at an average rate of approximately 469 wells per year over a period of 15 years, or until the resource base is fully developed. The productive life of each well would be approximately 40 years, and EOG expects all wells to be productive. EOG would use the existing infrastructure to the greatest possible extent by drilling vertical and directional wells. Well pads within the GCWPA would contain from one to six wells, with most well pads Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946459 containing more than one well. EOG would construct up to approximately 700 new well pads and access roads and would expand approximately 979 existing or previously authorized well pads. If fully developed, each section would contain 32 well pads such that optimal surface density would be one well pad every 20 acres. EOG would directionally drill wells to produce from bottom hole locations spaced at approximately five to 10 acres. The project would be supported by existing produced water disposal and treatment facilities, produced water pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and gas compression and processing facilities. EOG would construct and install support facilities where needed, including new well pad access roads, new or expanded well pads, new gas-gathering lines, and new produced water-injection wells. Potential issues include impacts to local and regional air quality and air quality related values; surface water and groundwater resources; floodplains; cultural and paleontological resources; soils; special status plant and animal species; range management; recreation; and socioeconomics. Alternatives identified at this time include the proposed action and the no action alternative. Additional alternatives will be developed as a result of issues and concerns identified through the scoping process. The BLM Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) (October 2008) directs the management of the BLM-administered public lands within the GCWPA. The RMP provides for energy resource exploration and development including a variety of oil and gas operations and geophysical explorations, unless precluded by other program prescriptions and surface-disturbance related stipulations (RMP, pp. 96 and 97). Comments on issues and planning criteria may be submitted in writing to the BLM at any public scoping meeting, or using one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section above. To be most helpful, comments should be submitted by the end of the public scoping period (within 30 days from the BLM's publication in the Federal Register ). Before including an address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that the entire comment—including personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While a request can be made to withhold personal identifying information from public review, it cannot be guaranteed. Jeff Rawson, Acting State Director. [FR Doc. E9-21661 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-PT. 14 S., R. 95 W. through 93 W.
T. 15 S., R. 95 W. through 93 W.
New Mexico Principal MeridianT. 51 N., R. 10 W. through 7 W.
T. 50 N., R. 10 W. through 6 W.
T. 49 N., R 9 W. through 8 W.
These rules are consistent with the Record of Decision of the 2004 GGNCA RMP. In preparing the RMP, the BLM sought public review of four alternatives. The RMP objectives are to protect the GGNCA's and adjacent public lands' natural settings and outstanding wilderness, geologic, cultural, scientific, wildlife, and recreational values, while providing the public a safe and enjoyable experience. An additional objective of the supplementary rules is to protect BLM employees and volunteers charged with maintaining and improving the condition of these natural resources and protect the BLM's investment in recreational facilities, signs, roads and other amenities provided for visitor enjoyment. The goals are to encourage users to obey all rules and regulations in order to increase visitor safety; prevent accidents; reduce human health and sanitation concerns; protect natural and cultural resources; eliminate motorized and non-motorized impacts on sensitive species habitat; reduce conflicts among user groups; and eliminate illegal uses such as vandalism, poaching, bonfires, underage drinking and drug parties, and any unruly behavior that may lead to any of these uses. The RMP includes specific management actions that restrict certain activities and define allowable uses. The proposed supplementary rules implement these management actions within the GGNCA and adjacent public lands. Many of the proposed supplementary rules apply to the entire area but some apply only to specific areas within the GGNCA. The proposed rules are written to allow for management flexibility. Rules that limit group size and stay length, restrict camping to designated sites, prohibit the collection of firewood and building of wood fires, and require the use of portable toilets, stoves and/or metal fire containers, are essential to provide maximum protection of the area's wilderness and wild and scenic river values, native riparian vegetation, sensitive wildlife and plant species, and to ensure successful implementation of BLM restoration projects. General travel and off-highway vehicle use regulations implement key RMP decisions intended to enhance user safety and ensure compliance with travel management restrictions to protect critical resources and scenic values in different management areas within the GGNCA and adjacent public lands. The implementation of these rules in the GGNCA and on adjacent public lands is a major step in providing the resources necessary to meet these goals and objectives. The Uncompaghre Field Office proposes to add these additional supplementary rules to the current rules in effect for the GGNCA and adjacent public lands under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Title 43 U.S.C. 1740, and Title 43 CFR 8365.1-6. IV. Procedural Matters Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review These supplementary rules are not significant regulatory actions and not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. These supplementary rules will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. They will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. These supplementary rules will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The supplementary rules do not materially alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of their recipients, nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. These supplementary rules are merely rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands. Clarity of the Regulations Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. The BLM invites your comments on how to make these proposed supplementary rules easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed supplementary rules clearly stated? (2) Do the proposed supplementary rules contain technical language or jargon that interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed supplementary rules (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc. ) aid or reduce their clarity? (4) Would the proposed supplementary rules be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the proposed supplementary rules in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the proposed supplementary rules? How could this description be more helpful in making the proposed supplementary rules easier to understand? Please send any comments you may have on the clarity of the proposed supplementary rules to one of the addresses specified in the ADDRESSES section. National Environmental Policy Act The proposed supplementary rules put forth in this notice implement key land use planning decisions in the Approved GGNCA RMP and Record of Decision signed by the BLM State Director of Colorado in November 2004. The four-year RMP process included extensive public input and development of a draft and Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the GGNCA and Gunnison Gorge Wilderness, which was completed in January 2004. During the National Environmental Policy Act process, each alternative was fully analyzed, including the types of decisions set forth in these supplemental rules. The rationale for the decisions made can be found in Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences. The BLM has placed the Final EIS, Approved RMP, and Record of Decision on file in the BLM Administrative Record at the address specified in the ADDRESSES section. Regulatory Flexibility Act Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rules do not have a significant economic impact on entities of any size, but provide for the protection of persons, property, and resources on specific public lands. Therefore, the BLM has determined under the RFA that the proposed supplementary rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946462 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) These supplementary rules are not “major” as defined under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The supplementary rules merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands and do not affect commercial or business activities of any kind. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act These supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year; nor do they have a significant or unique effect on small governments. The rules have no effect on governmental or tribal entities and would impose no requirements on any of these entities. The supplementary rules merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited selection of public lands and do not affect tribal, commercial, or business activities of any kind. Therefore, the BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings) These supplementary rules do not have significant takings implications, nor are they capable of interfering with Constitutionally protected property rights. The supplementary rules merely establish rules of conduct for public use of a limited area of public lands and do not affect anyone's property rights. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that these rules will not cause a “taking” of private property or require preparation of a takings assessment under this Executive Order. Executive Order 13132, Federalism These supplementary rules will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, nor the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. These supplementary rules do not come into conflict with any State law or regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has determined that these supplementary rules do not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that these rules will not unduly burden the judicial system and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that these supplementary rules do not include policies that have tribal implications. None of the lands included in these rules are Indian lands or affect Indian rights. Paperwork Reduction Act These supplementary rules do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Any information collection requirements contained in these rules are exempt from the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3518(c)(1). Federal criminal investigations or prosecutions may result from these rules, and the collection of information for these purposes is exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act. Supplementary Rules for the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area (GGNCA) and Adjacent Public Lands These supplementary rules apply, except as specifically exempted, to activities within the GGNCA and adjacent public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) near Montrose, Colorado. These supplementary rules are in effect on a year-round basis and will remain in effect until modified by the authorized officer. 1. General Travel Management a. You must not enter an area designated as closed by a BLM sign or map. b. You must not use roads and/or trails by motorized or mechanized vehicle or equestrian or pedestrian travel except where designated as open to such use by a BLM sign or map. c. You must not park in areas not designated for parking by a BLM sign or map. d. You must not launch or operate any motorized watercraft within the GGNCA or adjacent public lands. e. You must not operate any vehicle that produces sound exceeding 96 decibels. f. You must not operate an off-highway vehicle (OHV) with any object or person attached or being towed in any manner unless the off-road vehicle (ORV) is designed and manufactured for such purposes. 2. Vehicle Size and Trail Width a. You must not operate any vehicle except a motorcycle, ATV, or a UTV (50 inches in width or less) for motorized cross-country travel and/or play within the Flat Top-Peach Valley Recreation Area designated open areas. b. You must not operate any vehicle greater than 50 inches in width on any designated ATV/UTV routes. c. You must not operate any vehicle greater than 36 inches in width on any designated single track routes. 3. Firearms, Hunting, Target Shooting and Fireworks a. Within the GGNCA, you must not discharge a firearm of any kind, including those used for target shooting. Licensed hunters in legitimate pursuit of game during the proper season with appropriate firearms, as defined by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, are exempt from this rule. b. On public lands adjacent to the GGNCA, you must not target shoot in areas closed to that use by a BLM sign or map. c. Target shooters must not shoot or discharge any weapon at any object containing glass, or other target material that can shatter and cause a public safety hazard as a result of the projectile impact or explosion. d. You must not engage in any activities involving the use of paintballs. e. Persons who shoot or discharge any weapon must remove and properly dispose of all shooting materials, including spent brass or shells, their containers, and any items used as targets. f. You must not discharge any weapon within 500 yards of any developed recreation site or any other area that has been closed to discharge of firearms. g. You must not possess or discharge any fireworks. 4. Pets and Pack Stock a. You must not bring any animal into the GGNCA that is not controlled by visual, audible, or physical means. b. You must not leave any pets and/or pack stock unattended. c. You must remove and properly dispose of pet and/or pack stock solid waste when and where indicated by a BLM sign or map. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946463 5. Special Recreation Permits and Registration a. You must register, purchase permits, and possess proof of permits as indicated by BLM sign or map. b. If you use the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness as ingress to or egress from the Black Canyon National Park, you must register and purchase a Gunnison Gorge Wilderness permit and possess proof of the permit while in the Wilderness. 6. Group Size Limits Exceeding group size limits, as indicated by a BLM sign or map, is prohibited. 7. Camping a. You must not camp in sites or areas not designated as open to camping by a BLM sign or map. b. Within the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness you must not camp in any site other than the designated campsite(s) reserved by you or your group through the Gunnison Gorge permit system. c. In designated campsites or camping areas, you must maintain quiet within normal hearing range of any other person or persons, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. in accordance with applicable state time zone standards. d. You must not leave personal belongings overnight in an unattended campsite. e. You must keep campsites free of trash, litter and debris during the period of occupancy and shall remove all personal equipment and clean sites upon departure. 8. Length of Stay a. Exceeding length of stay limits, as indicated by a BLM sign or map, is prohibited. b. The hours of operation are sunrise to sunset in any area that is for day-use only as indicated by a BLM sign or map. You must not enter or remain in such an area after sunset or before sunrise. 9. Campfires and Wood Collecting a. You must not cut, collect, or use live, dead or down wood except in areas designated open to such use by a BLM sign or map. b. You must not start or maintain a fire in sites or areas not designated as open for such use by a BLM sign or map. c. Where allowed, any fire must be fully contained in a metal fire grate, fire pan, or other metal device to contain ashes. Mechanical stoves and other appliances that are fueled by gas and equipped with a valve that allows the operator to control the flame, are among the devices that meet this requirement. d. When starting or maintaining a fire outside of a developed recreation site, you must not fail to contain and dispose of fire ashes and debris in the manner indicated by a BLM sign or map. e. You must not burn wood or other material containing nails, glass, or any metal. 10. Human Waste Disposal You must dispose of solid human waste as indicated by a BLM sign or map. 11. Other Use Authorizations You must not violate any terms, conditions or stipulations of any permit or other authorization issued for special use of these public lands. Exemptions: The following persons are exempt from these supplementary rules: any Federal, State, local and/or military employee in the scope of their duties; members of any organized rescue or fire-fighting force in performance of an official duty; and persons, agencies, municipalities, or companies holding an existing special-use permit inside the GGNCA and operating within the scope of their permit. Definitions: For the purpose of these supplementary rules, the following definitions apply unless modified within a specific part or regulation: Adjacent public lands means those non-GGNCA BLM public lands immediately adjacent to the GGNCA and/or the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park whose management is addressed under the 2004 GGNCA RMP. These lands include: Black Ridge, Fruitland Mesa, West Peach Valley, Flat Top, East Flat Top, and Jones Draw lands. All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) or Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) means off-road vehicles 50 inches or less in overall width and weighing no more than 800 pounds. Camping means erecting a tent or a shelter of natural or synthetic materials, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, or parking a motor vehicle, motor home, or trailer for the purpose or apparent purpose of overnight occupancy while engaged in recreational activities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, bicycling, sightseeing, off-road vehicle activities, or other generally recognized forms of recreation. Designated campsite or site means a specific location identified by the BLM for camping or other purposes. Designated sites include individual sites in developed campgrounds that contain picnic tables, shelters, parking sites, and/or grills; dispersed campsites containing a sign and natural or man-made parking barricades denoting a designated camping area; and other use areas specifically designated by signs for use by a certain user type including, but not limited to hikers, boaters, equestrians, commercial outfitters, organized groups, or off-highway vehicle HV users. Designated route means roads and trails open to motorized vehicle use and identified on a map of designated roads and trails that is maintained and available for public inspection at the BLM Uncompahgre Field Office, Montrose, Colorado. Designated roads and motorized trails are open to public use in accordance with such limits and restrictions as are, or may be, specified in the RMP or in future decisions implementing the RMP. However, any road or trail with any restrictive signing or physical barrier, including gates, fences, posts, branches, or rocks intended to prevent use of the road or trail is not a designated motorized road or motorized trail. Developed recreational site means any site or area that contains structures or capital improvements primarily used by the public for recreation purposes. Such areas or sites may include such features as: delineated spaces or areas for parking, camping or boat launching; sanitation facilities; potable water; grills or fire rings; tables; or controlled access. Flat Top-Peach Valley Recreation Area means the Flat Top-Peach Valley Special Recreation Management Area designated in the 2004 GGNCA RMP. The recreation area contains developed recreation sites, open riding areas where cross-country travel is permitted, and designated routes and encompasses approximately 9,754 acres of public lands in Montrose County including lands both within and outside the GGNCA. Gunnison Gorge Wilderness means the congressionally designated Wilderness area within the GGNCA. The Wilderness is managed by the BLM as a Special Recreation Management Area and encompasses approximately 17,784 acres of public lands in Montrose and Delta counties. Gunnison Gorge permit system means the mandatory self-issuing special recreation permit (SRP) and registration system that applies to all users 16 years of age and older in the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness. Users are required to sign in at a Wilderness trailhead or the Chukar boater put-in site, pay applicable day-use or camping fees, and reserve the designated boater or hiker campsite(s) they intend to use during their stay. Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946464 Motorized watercraft means any craft operated upon water that is self-propelled by a non-living power source, including electric power. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) or off-road vehicle (ORV) means any motorized vehicle capable of, or designated for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) Any non-amphibious registered motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes: (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat-support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies. Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) means any multi-passenger off-highway vehicle most commonly known as UTVs (Utility Terrain Vehicle or just Utility Vehicle) or Side-by-Side Vehicles; they are also known as SxS, RUV (Recreational Utility Vehicle) or MUV (Multi-Use Vehicle). They are called Side-by-Side Vehicles because a driver and passenger(s) sit side-by-side in the vehicle. Penalties: Any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for no more than 12 months, or both. 43 U.S.C. 1733(a); 43 CFR 8360.0-7. Such violations may also be subject to the enhanced fines provided for by 18 U.S.C. 3571. Lynn E. Rust, Acting State Director. [FR Doc. E9-21659 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of This Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Certification of Knowledge of State Laws, Submission of Water Pollution Act. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Other: None. Persons who apply for a permit to purchase explosives intrastate must certify in writing that he is familiar with and understands all published State laws and local ordinances relating to explosive materials for the location in which he intends to do business; and submit the certificate required by section 21 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 50,000 respondents will take a estimated time of 30 seconds to submit the required information. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 416 annual total burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 2, 2009. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E9-21648 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946466 permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Transactions Among Licensee/Permitees and Transactions Among Licensees and Holders of User Permits. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: None. The Safe Explosives Act requires an explosives distributor must verify the identity of the purchaser; an explosives purchaser must provide a copy of the license/permit to distributor prior to the purchase of explosive materials; possessors of explosive materials must provide a list of explosives storage locations; purchasers of explosive materials must provide a list of representatives authorized to purchase on behalf of the distributor; and an explosive purchaser must provide a statement of intended use for the explosives. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 50,000 respondents will take 30 minutes to comply with the required information. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 25,000 annual total burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 2, 2009. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E9-21650 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Appeals of Background Checks. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: Individuals or households. The purpose of the collection is to allow applicants, employees, or other affected personnel the opportunity to appeal in writing the results of a background check conducted to satisfy their eligibility to possess explosive materials. The appeal request must include appropriate documentation or record(s) establishing the legal and/or factual basis for the challenge. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 500 respondents will spend 2 hours completing the required documentation for the appeal. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 1,000 annual total burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 2, 2009. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E9-21649 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: List of Responsible Persons. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Other: Business or other-profit. All persons holding ATF explosives licenses or permits must report any change in responsible persons or employees authorized to possess explosive materials to ATF. Such report must be submitted within 30 days of the change and must include appropriate identifying information for each responsible person. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 50,000 respondents will take 1 hour to complete the report. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 100,000 annual total burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 2, 2009. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E9-21653 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of this information collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Relief of Disabilities. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: None. Any person prohibited from shipping or transporting any explosive in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or from receiving or possessing any explosive which has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce may make application for relief from disabilities. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 50 respondents will take 1 minute to support documentation for relief. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946468 collection: The estimated annual total burden associated with this collection is 1 hour. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 2, 2009. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E9-21652 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Overview of This Information Collection (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Report of Stolen or Lost ATF F 5400.30, Intrastate Purchase Explosives Coupon. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: ATF F 5400.30. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: Individuals or households. When any Intrastate Purchase of Explosives Coupon is stolen, lost or destroyed, the person losing possession will, upon discovery of the theft, loss, or destruction, immediately, but in all cases before 24 hours have elapsed since discovery, report the matter to the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 800 respondents will complete a 20 minute form. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 264 annual total burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: September 2, 2009. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E9-21651 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-PAll submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-85. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-85 and should be submitted on or before September 30, 2009.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E9-21645 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-PAll submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-88. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-88 and should be submitted on or before September 30, 2009.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E9-21646 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P—Adoption of the agenda Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946477
—Decisions of other IMO bodies
—Consideration and adoption of amendments to mandatory instruments
—Measures to enhance maritime security
—Goal-based new ship construction standards
—LRIT-related matters
—Technical assistance sub-programme in maritime safety and security
—Capacity-building for the implementation of new measures
—Role of the human element
—Formal safety assessment
—Piracy and armed robbery against ships
—General cargo ship safety
—Reports of six subcommittees—Ship design and equipment, Training and Watchkeeping, Radiocommunications and Search and Rescue, Flag State Implementation, Safety of Navigation, Stability, Load Lines and Fishing Vessel Safety, Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes and Containers
—Relations with other organizations
—Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2009
Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator, Bronwyn G. Douglass, by e-mail at bronwyn.douglass@uscg.mil, by phone at (202) 372-3792, by fax at (202) 372-3972, or in writing at Commandant (CG-0941), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street, SW., STOP 7121, Washington, DC 20593-7121 not later than 72 hours before the meeting. Please note that due to security considerations, two valid, government issued photo identifications must be presented to gain entrance to the Headquarters building. The Headquarters building is accessible by taxi and privately owned conveyance (public transportation is not generally available). However, parking in the vicinity of the building is extremely limited. A member of the public needing reasonable accommodation should make his or her request by September 16th. Requests submitted after that date will be considered, but might not be able to be fulfilled. Additional information regarding this and other IMO SHC public meetings may be found at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/imo. Dated: September 2, 2009. J. Trent Warner, Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of State. [FR Doc. E9-21691 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-09-PThey were daughters and sons, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, spouses and partners, family and friends, colleagues and strangers. They hailed from cities and towns across our Nation and world. On September 11, 2001, thousands of innocent women and men were taken from us, and their loss leaves an emptiness in our hearts.
Hundreds perished as planes struck the skyline of New York City, the structure of the Pentagon, and the grass of Pennsylvania. In the immediate aftermath of these tragedies, many victims died as they sought safety. Selflessly placing themselves in danger, first responders, members of the Armed Forces, and private citizens made the ultimate sacrifice working to assist others. During the National Days of Prayer and Remembrance, Americans across the country cherish the memory of all those who passed and honor and pray for their families and friends.
Americans also remember and pray for the safety and success of the members of the United States Armed Forces, who work every day to keep our Nation safe from terrorism and other threats to our security. Military members assisted those in need on September 11, 2001, and serve now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. They have left the safety of home so that our Nation might be more secure. They have endured great sacrifice so that we might enjoy the blessings of liberty. Our servicemembers represent the best of America, and they deserve our deepest respect and gratitude.
The threat of terrorism has denied too many men, women, and children their right to live in peace and security. As the United States works to defeat terrorists and build a more hopeful future for our children and young people across the world, we seek humility and strength. We reflect upon the lessons drawn from our national tragedy, seek God’s guidance and wisdom, and, never forgetting the lost, commit to working in common cause with our friends and allies to create a safer and brighter world for current and future generations.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 4, through Sunday, September 6, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. I ask that the people of the United States, each in their own way, honor the victims of September 11, 2001, and their families through prayer, memorial services, the ringing of bells, and evening candlelight remembrance vigils. I invite the people of the world to share in this solemn commemoration.
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 200946302IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
[Please see PDF for image: OB#1.EPS] [FR Doc. E9-21852 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195-W9-P