55614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

8 ‘‘PAR’’ denotes parabolic aluminized reflector 

lamp type, and ‘‘20’’ is the diameter in 1⁄8 inches 

increments, which translates to 2.5 inches. 

R20 short lamps more efficient while 

also meeting spa application 

requirements. The CA IOUs contended 

that despite size and thermal 

limitations, there are commerciallyavailable small diameter lamps that 

have high efficiency, long life, and wide 

beam spreads. Further, the CA IOUs 

noted that these lamps use single-ended 

and double-ended halogen burners that 

improve energy efficiency while still 

meeting size requirements of spa lamps 

and providing sufficient lumens. (CA 

IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 3) The CA IOUs cited 

examples such as: (1) The Philips 40W 

Halogena Energy Saver, an R20 halogen 

lamp with a double-ended halogen 

burner, lamp life of 3,000 hours, 540 

lumen output and wide (flood) beam 

spread; and (2) the Philips 70W 

Halogena Energy Saver with doubleended burner, lamp life of 3,000 hours, 

and 1600 lumen output. (CA IOUs, No. 

3.1 at p. 2–3) The Energy Efficiency 

Organizations also cite the same 

examples. (Energy Efficiency 

Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 3) The CA 

IOUs also gave the example of a PAR20 8

lamp, which typically does not have 

MOLs exceeding 35⁄8 inches, and does 

have a lamp life of 3,000 hours, a wide 

variety of beam spreads, and the ability 

to accommodate single-ended halogen 

burners that would improve efficiency. 

(CA IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 2) NEEA 

concurred with the CA IOUs on this 

matter. (NEEA, 5.1 at p. 2) DOE requests 

comments on the technical feasibility of 

making R20 short lamps compliant with 

the energy conservation standards and 

also meeting relevant spa application 

requirements. In particular, DOE 

requests any technical data indicating 

that high temperatures would damage 

the cement that joins the base of the 

lamp to the glass envelope and/or the 

feasibility of increasing the lumen 

output without increasing the MOL 

using a more-efficient filament. DOE 

also requests comment on whether other 

technologies such as compact 

fluorescent lamp (CFL) or light-emitting 

diode (LED) could meet spa application 

requirements. 

D. Request for Information 

Although, DOE welcomes comments 

on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE 

is particularly interested in receiving 

comments, information, and 

recommendations on the following 

issues for the purpose of determining 

whether R20 short lamps meet the 

statutory criteria for exclusion from 

coverage set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E): 

1. DOE seeks comments on the 

potential for unregulated R20 short 

lamps to be used as substitutes for other 

lamps covered by energy conservation 

standards. 

2. DOE seeks comments on whether or 

not the distinctive features, pricing, and 

spa-specific labeling and marketing of 

R20 short lamps provide a sufficient 

deterrent to their use in other 

applications; 

3. DOE requests further information 

on the availability of substitute lamps 

that would meet both energy 

conservation standards and relevant spa 

application requirements, particularly 

whether CFLs or LEDs could serve as 

substitutes; and 

4. DOE requests further information 

on the technical feasibility of making 

R20 short lamps compliant with the 

prescribed energy conservation 

standards and also meeting relevant spa 

application requirements. In particular, 

DOE is interested in any technical data 

indicating that high temperatures would 

damage the cement that joins the base 

of the lamp to the glass envelope and/ 

or the feasibility of increasing the lumen 

output without increasing the MOL 

using a more-efficient filament. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22813 Filed 9–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0971; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–030–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific 

Aerospace Limited Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific 

Aerospace Limited Models FU24–954 

and FU24A–954 airplanes modified 

with an unapproved hopper lid 

modification. This proposed AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

Investigation of a recent Cresco 08–600 

accident identified a risk of the hopper lid 

interfering with the opening of the canopy in 

the event of an emergency landing. The pilot 

was prevented from opening the canopy by 

the hopper lid in the fully forward open 

position. This AD is issued due to the fact 

that the hopper lid installation on the 

accident aircraft was an unapproved 

modification and the Fletcher FU24 hopper 

installation is a similar design to the Cresco 

08–600. 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4146; fax: (816) 

329–4090; e-mail: 

karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55615 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2011–0971; Directorate Identifier 

2011–CE–030–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The Civil Aviation Authority, which 

is the aviation authority for New 

Zealand, has issued AD DCA/FU24/180, 

dated July 28, 2011 (referred to after this 

as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for the specified products. 

The MCAI states: 

Investigation of a recent Cresco 08–600 

accident identified a risk of the hopper lid 

interfering with the opening of the canopy in 

the event of an emergency landing. The pilot 

was prevented from opening the canopy by 

the hopper lid in the fully forward open 

position. This AD is issued due to the fact 

that the hopper lid installation on the 

accident aircraft was an unapproved 

modification and the Fletcher FU24 hopper 

installation is a similar design to the Cresco 

08–600. 

The MCAI requires reviewing the 

aircraft records, doing a conformity 

inspection for an approved design 

hopper lid installation, and removing 

the hopper lid installation, if not an 

approved design. You may obtain 

further information by examining the 

MCAI in the AD docket. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with this State of 

Design Authority, they have notified us 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all 

information and determined the unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Differences Between This Proposed AD 

and the MCAI or Service Information 

We have reviewed the MCAI and 

related service information and, in 

general, agree with their substance. But 

we might have found it necessary to use 

different words from those in the MCAI 

to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. 

operators and is enforceable. In making 

these changes, we do not intend to differ 

substantively from the information 

provided in the MCAI and related 

service information. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We 

also estimate that it would take about 1 

work-hour per product to comply with 

the basic requirements of this proposed 

AD. The average labor rate is $85 per 

work-hour. Required parts would cost 

about $0 per product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate 

the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $85, or $85 per product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

about 6 work-hours and require parts 

costing $0, for a cost of $510 per 

product. We have no way of 

determining the number of products 

that may need these actions. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA– 

2011–0971; Directorate Identifier 2011– 

CE–030–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by October 

24, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace 

Limited Models FU24–954 and FU24A–954 

airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in 

any category. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 52: Doors. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

Investigation of a recent Cresco 08–600 

accident identified a risk of the hopper lid 

interfering with the opening of the canopy in 

the event of an emergency landing. The pilot 

was prevented from opening the canopy by 

the hopper lid in the fully forward open 

position. This AD is issued due to the fact 

that the hopper lid installation on the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Because the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for 

Health of the Department of Health and Human 

Services the authority to make domestic drug 

scheduling recommendations, for purposes of this 

accident aircraft was an unapproved 

modification and the Fletcher FU24 hopper 

installation is a similar design to the Cresco 

08–600. 

The MCAI requires reviewing the aircraft 

records, doing a conformity inspection for an 

approved design hopper lid installation, and 

removing the hopper lid installation, if not 

an approved design. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions within 150 hours time-in-service 

(TIS) after the effective date of this AD or 

within 12 calendar months after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs first: 

(1) Review the aircraft records and 

determine whether a hopper lid modification 

has been recorded. If a hopper lid 

modification has been recorded, determine 

whether the aircraft was certified for release 

to service after completion of the 

modification and whether the applicable 

approved technical data (supplemental type 

certificate (STC) or field approval) is 

referenced. Visually inspect for an 

unapproved hopper lid modification. 

(2) If the hopper lid modification is an 

approved design, do a conformity inspection 

and determine whether the hopper lid 

modification conforms to the applicable 

approved technical data (supplemental type 

certificate (STC) or field approval). 

(3) If the hopper lid modification is not an 

approved design (STC or field approval), 

before further flight, remove the hopper lid 

installation. 

Note 1: The Frontier-Aerospace 

Incorporated Models Fletcher FU–24 and 

Fletcher FU–24A airplanes are U.S. typecertificated airplanes and do not have this 

unsafe condition. 

Note 2: The basic hopper installation for 

the Pacific Aerospace Limited Model FU24– 

954 airplane does not include a hopper lid 

due to the canopy sliding partly over the 

hopper inlet. A separate approval must be 

obtained to install a hopper lid. 

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, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4146; fax: (816) 

329–4090; e-mail: karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in 

the FAA Flight Standards District Office 

(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(h) MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) 

AD DCA/FU24/180, dated July 28, 2011, for 

related information. You may review copies 

of the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 

31, 2011. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22933 Filed 9–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

21 CFR Part 1308 

[Docket No. DEA–357] 

Schedules of Controlled Substances: 

Temporary Placement of Three 

Synthetic Cathinones Into Schedule I 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The Administrator of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) is 

issuing this notice of intent to 

temporarily schedule three synthetic 

cathinones under the Controlled 

Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the 

temporary scheduling provisions of 21 

U.S.C. 811(h). The substances are 4- 

methyl-N-methylcathinone 

(mephedrone), 3,4-methylenedioxy-Nmethylcathinone (methylone), and 3,4- 

methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV). 

This action is based on a finding by the 

Administrator that the placement of 

these synthetic cathinones into schedule 

I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an 

imminent hazard to the public safety. 

Any final order will be published in the 

Federal Register and may not be issued 

prior to October 11, 2011. Any final 

order will impose the administrative, 

civil, and criminal sanctions and 

regulatory controls of schedule I 

substances under the CSA on the 

manufacture, distribution, possession, 

importation, and exportation of these 

synthetic cathinones. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Imelda L. Paredes, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 

Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone 

(202) 307–7165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Comprehensive Crime Control 

Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–473), which was 

signed into law on October 12, 1984, 

amended section 201 of the CSA (21 

U.S.C. 811) to give the Attorney General 

the authority to temporarily place a 

substance into schedule I of the CSA for 

one year without regard to the 

requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he 

finds that such action is necessary to 

avoid imminent hazard to the public 

safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h); 21 CFR 

1308.49. If proceedings to control a 

substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 

811(a)(1), the Attorney General may 

extend the temporary scheduling up to 

six months. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2). Where 

the necessary findings are made, a 

substance may be temporarily 

scheduled if it is not listed in any other 

schedule under section 202 of the CSA 

(21 U.S.C. 812) or if there is no 

exemption or approval in effect under 

section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) for the 

substance. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The 

Attorney General has delegated his 

authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the 

Administrator of DEA. 28 CFR 0.100. 

Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA (21 

U.S.C. 811(h)(4)) requires the 

Administrator to notify the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services of her 

intention to temporarily place a 

substance into schedule I of the CSA.1


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS