This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

48693 

Vol. 79, No. 159 

Monday, August 18, 2014 

1The CFATS authorizing statue can be found 

online at: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ 

chemsec_cfats_lawsregsec_authorizing_statute.pdf. 

2The CFATS interim final rule can be found 

online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007- 

04-09/pdf/E7-6363.pdf. 

3Appendix A can be found online at: http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-11-20/pdf/07- 

5585.pdf. 

4Exempted facilities include facilities regulated 

pursuant to the Maritime Transportation Security 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–295, as amended; 

public water systems, as defined by Section 1401 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Law 93–523, 

as amended; treatment works, as defined in Section 

212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 

Public Law 92–500, as amended; any facility owned 

or operated by the Department of Defense or the 

Department of Energy, or any facility subject to 

regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

5The CSAT is an information technology system 

primarily designed to collect facility information 

through specific applications for submitting TopScreens, SVAs, SSPs, and ASPs. See 6 CFR 27.105. 

6CFATS places covered, high-risk chemical 

facilities into one of four tiers, with Tier 1 facilities 

being the highest risk and Tier 4 facilities being the 

least high-risk. Facilities that do not present a highrisk do not receive a Tier level and are not subject 

to additional CFATS requirements. When 

determining if a facility is high-risk, the Department 

is primarily focused on the potential consequences 

associated with a successful terrorist attack on the 

facility (including the use of stolen or diverted 

materials in a separate attack offsite). A threat factor 

also is incorporated into the risk assessment for 

facilities with release hazards. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Office of the Secretary 

6 CFR Part 27 

[Docket No. DHS–2014–0016] 

RIN 1601–AA69 

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards 

AGENCY: National Protection and 

Programs Directorate, DHS. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Section 550 of the Department 

of Homeland Security Appropriations 

Act of 2007 provides the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS or 

Department) with the authority to 

regulate the security of high risk 

chemical facilities. To implement this 

authority, DHS issued the Chemical 

Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards 

(CFATS) regulation in 2007. DHS is 

initiating this rulemaking process as a 

step towards maturing the CFATS 

program and to identify ways to make 

the program more effective in achieving 

its regulatory objectives. This Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) provides an opportunity for 

the Department to hear and consider, 

during the development of an updated 

CFATS regulation, the views of 

regulated industry and other interested 

members of the public on their 

recommendations for program 

modifications. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before October 17, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number DHS– 

2014–0016, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, National Protection and 

Programs Directorate, Office of 

Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure 

Security Compliance Division, 245 

Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0610, 

Arlington, VA 20528–0610. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon 

MacLaren, Rulemaking Section Chief, 

Office of Infrastructure Protection, 

Infrastructure Security Compliance 

Division, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail 

Stop 0610, Washington, DC 20528; 

telephone 703–235–5263. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Abbreviations and Terms Used in This 

Document 

ANPRM—Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

ASP—Alternative Security Program 

CFATS—Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 

Standards 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

COI—Chemicals of Interest 

CSAT—Chemical Security Assessment Tool 

CVI—Chemical-terrorism Vulnerability 

Information 

DHS or Department—Department of 

Homeland Security 

E.O.—Executive Order 

FR—Federal Register 

Pub. L.—Public Law 

RBPS—Risk Based Performance Standards 

SSP—Site Security Plan 

STQ—Screening Threshold Quantity 

SVA—Security Vulnerability Assessment 

I. Background 

Section 550 of the Department of 

Homeland Security Appropriations Act 

of 2007 1 (Pub. L. 109–295) authorized 

the Department to regulate the security 

of chemical facilities that, in the 

discretion of the Secretary, present high 

levels of security risk. Under the Section 

550 authority, on April 9, 2007, DHS 

issued the CFATS interim final rule, 

codified at 6 CFR part 27. See 72 FR 

17688.2 Additionally, in November 

2007, the Department adopted as 

Appendix A to CFATS a final list of 

over 300 Chemicals of Interest (COI) that 

pose significant risks to human life or 

health if released, stolen or diverted, or 

sabotaged. DHS also adopted some 

additional provisions that clarify how 

Appendix A is to be applied under 

CFATS. See 72 FR 65396.3 Publication 

of the Appendix A regulations brought 

the CFATS interim final rule into full 

effect. 

Under CFATS, any chemical facility 

(other than certain facilities expressly 

exempted by Section 550) 4 that 

possesses any COI at or above the 

applicable Screening Threshold 

Quantity (STQ) specified in Appendix A 

for that COI must complete and submit 

to DHS through the Chemical Security 

Assessment Tool (CSAT) 5 certain 

consequence-based information (the 

‘‘Top-Screen’’). Any facility initially 

determined to be high-risk after DHS’s 

review of the facility’s Top-Screen and/ 

or other relevant information that comes 

to the Department’s attention, is 

assigned a preliminary risk-based tier 

(Tiers 1–4) 6 and must then submit to 

DHS a Security Vulnerability 

Assessment (SVA) per section 27.215 

(Tier 4 facilities may submit an 

Alternate Security Program (ASP) in 

lieu of an SVA). DHS evaluates the SVA 

and other relevant information to make 

a final determination as to whether the 

facility is high-risk and, if so, which tier 

it should be assigned to. Any facility 

that is finally determined to be high-risk 

must submit, obtain DHS approval of, 

and then implement a Site Security Plan 

(SSP), or ASP in lieu of an SSP, that 

describes the security measures the 

facility utilizes to meet the appropriate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48694 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7Under 6 CFR 27.245(a)(2), DHS ‘‘may 

disapprove a Site Security Plan that fails to satisfy 

the risk-based performance standards established in 

27.230.’’ If DHS were to disapprove an SSP or ASP, 

DHS would also simultaneously issue, pursuant to 

6 CFR 27.300(a), an Order directing the facility to 

re-submit its SSP/ASP to include security measures 

that satisfy applicable RBPS. If the facility fails to 

do so, DHS could then assess civil penalties and/ 

or direct the facility to cease some or all operations, 

pursuant to 6 CFR 27.300(b). Under 6 CFR 27.310, 

however, the facility has the option of contesting 

any disapproval/order through an administrative 

adjudication. To date, DHS has not disapproved any 

SSPs/ASPs. 

8The E.O. established a Chemical Facility Safety 

and Security Working Group to oversee the effort, 

which is tri-chaired by the Department of Labor, the 

Department of Homeland Security, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and includes 

leadership and subject matter experts from the 

Department of Justice, the Department of 

Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation. 

9For more information on E.O. 13650 and the 

May 2014 Final Report, visit: https://www.osha.gov/ 

chemicalexecutiveorder/index.html. 

level of performance under 18 

applicable Risk Based Performance 

Standards (RBPS). 

During the review process, DHS 

compares specific security measures 

reported in the SSP against the RBPS to 

determine whether the SSP adequately 

addresses the applicable RBPS in a 

manner commensurate with the 

facility’s risk-based tier and other 

circumstances as outlined in section 

27.230. Once DHS has determined that 

the SSP appears to be adequate, DHS 

will authorize the SSP or ASP, and 

notify the facility as such via a Letter of 

Authorization. DHS Chemical 

Inspectors must then conduct an on-site 

authorization inspection in accordance 

with sections 27.245(a)(ii) and 27.250. 

The results of the authorization 

inspection help to inform DHS’s 

decision on whether the SSP or ASP 

should be approved. Upon approval, the 

Department issues the facility a Letter of 

Approval, after which the facility is 

subject to compliance inspections to 

verify that the facility is carrying out its 

approved SSP or ASP. See 6 CFR 

27.245(a)(iii). The regulations also 

establish procedures for DHS to notify a 

facility that the SSP or ASP is deficient, 

require consultations between DHS and 

the facility to try to resolve specific 

deficiencies, and authorize DHS to issue 

a Letter of Disapproval if the 

deficiencies are not addressed by the 

facility in a timely manner. See 6 CFR 

27.245(b). 

Since the publication of the CFATS 

interim final rule, the Department has 

met several significant milestones. As of 

June 17, 2014, DHS has received more 

than 48,500 Top-Screens submitted by 

chemical facilities. As of June 17, 2014, 

DHS has notified more than 8,895 

facilities that it has initially designated 

them as high-risk and thus, they are 

required to submit SVAs. DHS has 

completed its review of approximately 

8,830 submitted SVAs. As of June 17, 

2014, CFATS covers 4,019 high-risk 

facilities nationwide; of these 4,019 

facilities, 3,261 are currently subject to 

final high-risk determinations and 

submission of an SSP or ASP; and 758 

are currently pending a final tier. As of 

June 17, 2014, the Department has 

authorized SSPs/ASPs for 1,648 

facilities, conducted authorization 

inspections at 1,204 facilities, and 

approved SSPs/ASPs for 859 facilities.7

The CFATS program is an important 

part of our Nation’s counterterrorism 

efforts. DHS works with our industry 

stakeholders to keep dangerous 

chemicals out of the hands of those who 

wish to do us harm. Since the CFATS 

program was created, DHS has engaged 

with industry to identify high-risk 

chemical facilities to ensure they have 

security measures in place to reduce the 

risks associated with the possession of 

chemicals of interest. The progress 

made in the CFATS program over the 

last several years has significantly 

enhanced the security of the Nation’s 

chemical infrastructure; however, to 

more fully mature the program, DHS is 

initiating this rulemaking process to 

help it identify how to make the CFATS 

program more effective in achieving its 

regulatory objectives. In particular, DHS 

is interested in comments on the topics 

described in Part IV of the ANPRM to 

include the general regulatory approach, 

treatment of non-traditional chemical 

facilities, clarification of terminology, 

Risk Based Performance Standards, 

Appendix A, considerations for small 

businesses, and alignment with other 

regulatory programs. 

Further, on August 1, 2013, the 

President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 

13650—Improving Chemical Facility 

Safety and Security, to enhance the 

safety and security of chemical facilities 

and reduce the risks associated with 

hazardous chemicals to owners, 

operators, workers, and communities. 

The E.O. directs the Federal 

Government to: improve operational 

coordination with State, local, and tribal 

partners; enhance Federal agency 

coordination and information; 

modernize policies, regulations, and 

standards; and work with stakeholders 

to identify best practices.8 As detailed 

in the May 2014 E.O. Final Report, DHS 

is taking a number actions to build a 

stronger CFATS program, one of which 

is the issuance of this ANPRM as an 

initial step in seeking input on 

improving the CFATS regulations 

themselves.9

II. Written Comments 

A. In General 

This ANPRM will provide an 

opportunity for the Department to hear 

and consider the views of regulated 

industry and other interested members 

of the public on their recommendations 

for CFATS program modifications and 

improvements. 

DHS invites interested persons to 

submit written comments, data, or 

views on how the current CFATS 

regulations, 6 CFR part 27, might be 

improved. Comments that would be 

most helpful to DHS include the 

questions and issues identified in Part 

IV of this document. Please explain the 

reason for any comments with available 

data, and include other information or 

authority that supports such comments. 

The Department encourages interested 

parties to provide specific data that 

documents the potential costs of 

modifying the existing regulatory 

requirements pursuant to the 

commenter’s suggestions; the potential 

quantifiable benefits including security 

and societal benefits of modifying the 

existing regulatory requirements; and 

the potential impacts on small 

businesses of modifying the existing 

regulatory requirements. 

DHS requests that commenters 

discuss potential economic impacts, 

whenever possible, in terms of 

quantitative benefits (e.g., reductions in 

injuries, fatalities, and property 

damage), costs (e.g., compliance costs or 

decreases in production), and offsets to 

costs (e.g., less need for maintenance 

and repairs) when providing feedback 

on this ANPRM. DHS also requests that 

commenters provide data and 

information on economic effects that 

suggestions may have on market 

conditions or services (e.g., market 

structure and concentration), and in 

particular, any special circumstances 

related to small entities, such as 

potential market-structure disruptions 

or uniquely high costs that small 

entities may bear. 

DHS requests that commenters 

discuss economic impacts in as specific 

terms as possible. For example, if a 

regulatory or policy change would 

necessitate additional employee 

training, then helpful information 

would include the following: The 

training courses necessary; the types of 

employees or contractors who would 

receive the training; topics covered; any 

retraining necessary; and the training 

costs if conducted by a third-party 

vendor or in-house trainer. The 

Department invites comment on the 

time and level of expertise required to 

implement commenter suggestions, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 48695 

10For example, information covered under 

Sensitive Security Information (SSI). 

11Submission schedules are detailed in 6 CFR 

27.210. 

12The expansive and dynamic nature of the 

community that uses potentially hazardous 

chemicals and that have facilities that are covered 

by CFATS include, but are not limited to many 

types of facilities that are not traditionally 

considered ‘‘chemical facilities,’’ such as 

agricultural product manufacturers; microchip 

manufacturers; paint and coatings manufacturers; 

mines; hospitals; racecar tracks; and colleges and 

universities. With the exception of agricultural 

production facilities, the CFATS processes and 

requirements are the same for all covered facilities. 

even if dollar-cost estimates are not 

available. 

Feedback that simply states a 

stakeholder feels strongly that DHS 

should modify CFATS, without 

including actionable data, including 

how the proposed change would impact 

the costs and benefits of CFATS, is 

much less useful to DHS. To help DHS 

organize and review all comments, 

please identify the relevant provision of 

6 CFR part 27 that relates to the specific 

comment provided (e.g., 6 CFR 27.100). 

If the commenter’s suggestion is on a 

topic that is not covered by the current 

regulation, please note that in the 

submission. 

Written comments may be submitted 

electronically or by mail, as explained 

previously in the ADDRESSES section of 

this ANPRM. To avoid duplication, 

please use only one of these methods to 

submit written comments. 

Except as provided below, all 

comments received, as well as pertinent 

background documents, will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

B. Handling of Proprietary, Sensitive 

and Chemical-Terrorism Vulnerability 

Information 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

submit comments in a manner that does 

not include any discussion of trade 

secrets, proprietary commercial or 

financial information, Chemicalterrorism Vulnerability Information 

(CVI), or any other category of sensitive 

information 10 that should not be 

disclosed to the general public. If it is 

not possible to avoid such discussion, 

however, please specifically identify 

any proprietary or sensitive information 

contained in the comments with 

appropriate warning language (e.g., any 

CVI must be marked and handled in 

accordance with the requirements of 6 

CFR 27.400(f)), and submit them by mail 

to the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

DHS will not place any proprietary or 

sensitive comments in the public 

docket; rather, DHS will handle them in 

accordance with applicable safeguards 

and restrictions on access. See e.g., 6 

CFR 27.400. See also the DHS CVI 

Procedural Manual, ‘‘Safeguarding 

Information Designated as CVI,’’ 

September 2008, located on the DHS 

Web site at: www.dhs.gov/criticalinfrastructure-chemical-security. DHS 

will hold any such comments in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and place a note in the 

public docket that DHS has received 

such materials from the commenter. 

DHS will provide appropriate access to 

such comments upon request to 

individuals who meet the applicable 

legal requirements for access to such 

information. 

III. Listening Sessions 

A. Purpose 

The Department plans to hold 

multiple public listening sessions to 

solicit the public’s views on the ANPRM 

and how the current CFATS regulation 

might be improved. DHS plans to 

announce dates, times and locations of 

these public listening sessions on the 

Department’s Chemical Security Web 

site at www.dhs.gov/criticalinfrastructure-chemical-security. 

B. Procedures and Participation for the 

Listening Sessions 

Each meeting will be open to the 

public. DHS will use sign-in sheets to 

voluntarily collect contact information 

from the attending public and to 

properly log oral comments received 

during the sessions. Providing contact 

information will be voluntary, and 

members of the public may also make 

oral comments without providing their 

names. Seating may be limited, but 

session organizers will make every effort 

to accommodate all participants. A 

listening session may adjourn early if all 

commenters present have had the 

opportunity to speak prior to the 

scheduled conclusion of the session. For 

information on facilities or services for 

individuals with disabilities or to 

request special assistance at the public 

listening sessions, contact Mr. Jon 

MacLaren at the telephone number or 

email address indicated under the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this ANPRM. 

For members of the public who 

cannot attend a scheduled listening 

session, a copy of any presentation 

provided by the Department at the 

sessions will be made available via the 

Department’s Chemical Security Web 

site at www.dhs.gov/criticalinfrastructure-chemical-security. In 

addition, DHS will place a transcript of 

each of these public listening sessions 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

IV. Questions for Commenters 

To help DHS identify ways, if any, to 

improve the manner in which it 

administers CFATS, DHS seeks public 

comments on any and all aspects of 6 

CFR part 27, including both the CFATS 

Interim Final Rule and Appendix A. 

Areas that DHS is most interested in 

receiving comments on include, but are 

not limited to, the following: 

a. General Regulatory Approach— 

Comments on how the Department 

could continue to improve its current 

approach toward identifying CFATS 

covered facilities and ensuring their 

compliance with CFATS requirements, 

such as: 

(1) the information submission 

processes (i.e., the Top-Screen, SVA, 

and SSP submissions) and associated 

schedules; 11

(2) the means and methods by which 

facilities claim a statutorily exempt 

status and whether or not commenters 

think that deletions, additions or 

modification to the list of exempt 

facilities should be considered; 

(3) the use of ASPs in lieu of SVAs 

and, in particular, the current limitation 

on the use of ASPs in lieu of SVAs to 

Tier 4 facilities; 

(4) the, scope, tier applicability and 

processes for submitting and reviewing 

SSPs and ASPs; 

(5) the processes for submitting and 

evaluating requests for redetermination 

by chemical facilities previously 

determined by DHS to be high-risk; and 

(6) the issuance of orders and the 

regulatory enforcement process. 

DHS also requests that the commenter 

provide, in as much detail as possible, 

an explanation why the regulatory 

approach should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or removed, as 

well as specific suggestions of the ways 

DHS can better achieve its regulatory 

objectives. 

b. Treatment of Non-Traditional 

Chemical Facilities—DHS recognizes 

that a one-size-fits-all approach may not 

be optimal for such a diverse regulated 

community, and requests comments 

regarding the applicability of existing 

CFATS requirements and processes 

(e.g., Top-Screen/SVA/SSP formats and 

submission schedules; risk-based 

performance standards; holding times 

for COI) to non-traditional chemical 

facilities covered under CFATS.12 DHS 

also is particularly interested in 

comments on maintaining, lifting, or 

partially lifting the indefinite extension 

from the Top-Screen submission 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48696 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13 In December 2007, DHS exercised its discretion 

under the CFATS regulation by granting an 

indefinite extension from the Top-Screen 

submission deadline for agricultural production 

facilities that use chemicals of interest (COI) and 

COI-containing products for agricultural production 

purposes (see 73 FR 1640). Examples of agricultural 

production facilities include: farms, ranches and 

range land, livestock facilities, turf grass growers, 

golf courses, nurseries and floricultural operations, 

and public and private parks. 

14CFATS establishes eighteen Risk-Based 

Performance Standards (RBPSs) that identify the 

areas for which a facility’s security posture will be 

examined, such as perimeter security, access 

control, personnel surety, and cyber security. To 

meet the RBPSs, covered facilities are free to choose 

whatever security programs or processes they deem 

appropriate, so long as they achieve the requisite 

level of performance in each applicable area. The 

programs and processes that a high-risk facility 

ultimately chooses to implement to meet these 

standards must be described in the Site Security 

Plan (SSP) that every high-risk chemical facility 

must develop pursuant to the regulations. The 

RBPS guidance document is available online at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/chemsec_cfats_

riskbased_performance_standards.pdf. 

15 Information on other chemical safety and 

security programs that may impact CFATSregulated facilities is provided in the preamble to 

the CFATS Final Rule (see 72 FR 17689), as well 

as the E.O. 13650 May 2014 Final Report. 

deadline for agricultural production 

facilities issued in December 2007.13

c. Clarification of Terminology— 

Comments regarding the utility, clarity 

and accuracy of definitions currently 

found in 6 CFR 27.105, such as, but not 

limited to, the definitions of ‘‘A 

Commercial Grade’’ and ‘‘A Placarded 

Amount.’’ DHS also seeks comments on 

the utility of including definitions, and 

what those definitions should be, for the 

terms ‘‘material modifications,’’ ‘‘critical 

asset,’’ and ‘‘site asset;’’ and 

‘‘inspection.’’ DHS invites comments on 

recommendations for additional terms 

used in the current CFATS regulations 

that may warrant further clarification. 

d. Risk Based Performance 

Standards 14—Comments on whether 

and how DHS should clarify or modify 

the 18 RBPS in 6 CFR 27.230, whether 

DHS should combine and/or eliminate 

any of the existing RBPS, and whether 

DHS should adopt any additional RBPS. 

e. Appendix A—Comments on all 

aspects of CFATS Appendix A, 

including: 

(1) Comments on the possible 

addition of chemicals to, and/or the 

deletion or modification of certain COI 

currently listed in Appendix A; 

(2) any term utilized in 6 CFR 27.203, 

and the applicability and/or 

modification of STQs as the bases for 

listing COI (e.g., by security issue(s)); 

and 

(3) the concentration and mixtures 

rules associated with Appendix A, 

which are described in 6 CFR 27.204. 

f. Small Business Considerations— 

Comments regarding considerations 

specific to small businesses. 

g. Alignment with Other Regulatory 

Programs—Comments regarding how 

the Department may be able to better 

align CFATS and other existing 

chemical facility regulations, including 

comments on any duplication or overlap 

that may exist between CFATS and 

another regulatory program.15 When 

providing comments on this topic, DHS 

encourages commenters to provide the 

specific citations to the regulatory 

regimes that may duplicate or overlap 

with the requirements under CFATS as 

well as a specific description of the 

duplicative or overlapping 

requirements. 

In addressing these topics, DHS 

encourages interested parties to provide 

specific data that documents the 

potential costs of modifying the existing 

regulatory requirements pursuant to the 

commenter’s suggestions; the potential 

quantifiable benefits including security 

and societal benefits of modifying the 

existing regulatory requirements; and 

the potential impacts on small 

businesses of modifying the existing 

regulatory requirements. Commenters 

might also address how DHS can best 

obtain and consider accurate, objective 

information and data about the costs, 

burdens, and benefits of the CFATS 

Interim Final Rule and Appendix A, and 

whether there are lower cost alternatives 

that would allow the Department to 

continue to achieve its security goals 

consistent with the law. 

Jeh Charles Johnson, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19356 Filed 8–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0578; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–048–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters Deutschland GmbH 

(Previously Eurocopter Deutschland 

GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters) 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus 

Helicopters Model MBB–BK 117 C–2 

helicopters with certain duplex trim 

actuators installed. This proposed AD 

would require repetitively inspecting 

the lateral and longitudinal trim 

actuator output levers for correct torque 

of the nuts. This proposed AD is 

prompted by a design review that the 

attachment screws can become lost 

under certain circumstances. The 

proposed actions are intended to 

prevent the loss of an attachment screw, 

which could result in movement of the 

output lever in an axial direction, 

contact of a bolt connecting the control 

rod to an output lever with the actuator 

housing, and subsequent loss of 

helicopter control. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address 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 proposed AD, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD, the economic 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 service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus 

Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, 

Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone 

(972) 641–0000 or (800) 232–0323; fax 

(972) 641–3775; or at http://

www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. 

You may review the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS