[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20526-20529]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08703]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74709; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

April 10, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 31, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective April
1, 2015. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend its fees for the
Russell 2000 Index (``RUT''). As of April 1, 2015, RUT will be listed
exclusively on CBOE and C2 Options Exchange Incorporated (``C2''). As
such, the Exchange proposes to make certain conforming changes to its
Fees Schedule.
    By way of background, a specific set of proprietary products had
been commonly listed out in the Fees Schedule as being included or
excluded from a variety of programs, qualification calculations and
transactions fees. In lieu of listing out these products in various
sections of the Fees Schedule, the Exchange recently adopted the term
``Underlying Symbol List A,'' to represent these products.\3\
Currently, Underlying Symbol List A is defined in Footnote 34 and
represents the following proprietary products: OEX, XEO, SPX (including
SPXw), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST, VOLATILITY INDEXES and binary options The
Exchange notes that the reason the products in Underlying Symbol List A
are often collectively included or excluded from certain programs,
qualification calculations and transactions fees is because the
Exchange has expended considerable resources developing and maintaining
its proprietary, exclusively-listed products. Similar to the products
currently represented by ``Underlying Symbol List A,'' RUT will no
longer be listed on any other exchange (other than C2). As such, the
Exchange proposes to exclude or include RUT in the same programs as the
other products in Underlying Symbol List A (except as otherwise noted
below), as well as add RUT to the definition of Underlying Symbol List
A in Footnote 34. Specifically, like the other products in Underlying
Symbol List A, the Exchange proposes to except RUT from the Liquidity
Provider Sliding Scale, the Marketing Fee, the Clearing Trading Permit
Holder Fee Cap (``Fee Cap'') and exemption from fees for facilitation
orders, and the Order Router Subsidy (ORS) and Complex Order Router
Subsidy (CORS) Programs. Like all other products in Underlying Symbol
List A (with the exception of SROs), the Exchange proposes to apply to
RUT the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. Unlike the products in
Underlying Symbol List A, the Exchange does intend to keep RUT volume
in the calculation of qualifying volume for the rebate of Floor Broker
Trading Permit fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73832 (December 12,
2014), 79 FR 243 (December 18, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-092).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, as the Exchange proposes to include RUT in Underlying Symbol
List A, the reference to RUT in the ``Index Options Rate Table--All
Index Products Excluding Underlying Symbol List A'' table will be
deleted and new references to RUT, where applicable, will be added to
the ``Specified Proprietary Index Options Rate Table--Underlying Symbol
List A'' table. Additionally, the Exchange will add ``RUT'' to the list
of products excluded from the Customer section of the Index Options
Rate Table. The Exchange also proposes to spell out and add a separate
row for the remaining products of Underlying Symbol List A for Broker-
Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/
Voluntary Professionals and Joint Back Offices (``JBOs'') transaction
fees.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend certain transaction fees for
RUT options. Currently, Clearing Trading Permit Holder proprietary
(``F'' origin code) and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate (``L''
origin code) RUT transactions are assessed $0.35 per contract for
electronic transactions and $0.20 per contract for both manual and
Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') transactions. The Exchange
proposes to assess a $0.25 per contract transaction fee for all
Clearing Trading Permit Holder and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate
transactions, which is the same fee amount assessed to Clearing Trading
Permit Holder

proprietary and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliate transactions for
all products in Underlying Symbol List A.\4\ Next, the Exchange notes
that currently, RUT is subject to the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale,
which provides for reduced transaction fees for Market-Makers that
reach certain volume thresholds in all underlying symbols excluding
Underlying Symbol List A and mini-options. As mentioned above, the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale will no longer apply to RUT as RUT
will now be exclusively listed on CBOE (and C2) and part of Underlying
Symbol List A. As such, the Exchange proposes to assess Market-Makers
$0.20 per contract for all RUT transactions, which is also the same fee
amount as applies to Market-Makers for all products in Underlying
Symbol List A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The $0.25 per contract fee for Clearing Trading Permit
Holders and Non-Trading Permit Holder Affiliates is subject to the
applicability of the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend the AIM transaction RUT fees
for Broker-Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers,
Professionals/Voluntary Professionals and Joint Back Offices
(``JBOs''). Currently, the Exchange assesses these market participants
$0.20 per contract for AIM Agency/Primary transactions and $0.05 per
contract for AIM Contra transactions. The Exchange proposes to charge
all RUT AIM transactions $0.25 per contract. The current fees of $0.65
per contract for Broker-Dealer, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Maker,
and JBO electronic RUT transactions and $0.25 per contract for manual
transactions are not changing. Currently, Customer transactions are
assessed $0.18 per contract for all RUT orders other than AIM Contra
orders. AIM Contra transactions are currently assessed $0.05 per
contract. The Exchange proposes to increase the AIM Contra fee to $0.18
per contract, so that all Customer transactions will be assessed the
same rate (i.e., $0.18). The Exchange notes that Customer AIM orders
(both AIM Agency/Primary and Contra) for other Underlying Symbol List A
products are also charged the same amount(s) as apply to Customer non-
AIM transactions for each respective product.
    The Exchange also proposes to apply to RUT, like the other products
in Underlying Symbol List A, the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per
contract ($0.02 per contract for crossed orders) (the Floor Brokerage
Fee applies only to Floor Brokers, and only for open outcry trading).
    Currently, the Exchange assesses an Index License Surcharge for RUT
of $0.30 per contract for all non-customer orders. The Exchange now
proposes to increase the RUT Surcharge from $0.30 to 0.45 per contract
in order to recoup the increased costs associated with the RUT license.
The Exchange will still be subsidizing the costs of the RUT license.
    Footnote 25, which governs rebates on Floor Broker Trading Permits,
currently provides that any Floor Broker that executes a certain
average of customer open-outcry contracts per day over the course of a
calendar month in all underlying symbols excluding Underlying Symbol
List A, DJX, XSP, XSPAM, mini-options and subcabinet trades, will
receive a rebate on that Floor Broker's Trading Permit Holder's Floor
Broker Trading Permit Fees. The Exchange notes that although RUT is
being added to ``Underlying Symbol List A'', it wishes to continue to
include RUT in the calculation of the qualifying volume for the rebate
of Floor Broker Trading Permit fees. As such, the Exchange seeks to
explicitly note in Footnote 25 that RUT will be included in the
calculation, notwithstanding its inclusion in Underlying Symbol List A.
The Exchange wishes to continue to encourage Floor Brokers to execute
open-outcry trades in RUT options and believes that continuing to
include RUT in the qualifying volume will provide such incentive.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that as discussed above, Floor Brokers
will now be assessed floor brokerage fees for RUT, which had not been
assessed to them previously.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge
different fee amounts to different user types in the manner proposed
because the proposed fees are consistent with the price differentiation
that exists today for other proprietary products. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed fee amounts for RUT orders are reasonable
because the proposed fee amounts are within the range of amounts
assessed for the Exchange's other proprietary products.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Specified Proprietary Index Options
Rate Table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Customers as compared to other
market participants because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on
the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically,
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. The fees offered to Customers are
intended to attract more Customer trading volume to the Exchange.
Moreover, the options industry has a long history of providing
preferential pricing to Customers, and the Exchange's current Fees
Schedule currently does so in many places, as do the fees structures of
many other exchanges. Finally, all fee amounts listed as applying to
Customers will be applied equally to all Customers (meaning that all
Customers will be assessed the same amount).
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to, assess lower fees to Market-Makers as compared to
other market participants other than Customers because Market-Makers,
unlike other market participants, take on a number of obligations,
including quoting obligations, that other market participants do not
have. Further, these lower fees offered to Market-Makers are intended
to incent Market-Makers to quote and trade more on the Exchange,
thereby providing more trading opportunities for all market

participants. Additionally, the proposed fee for Market-Makers will be
applied equally to all Market-Makers (meaning that all Market-Makers
will be assessed the same amount). This concept also applies to orders
from all other origins. It should also be noted that all fee amounts
described herein are intended to attract greater order flow to the
Exchange in RUT, which should therefore serve to benefit all Exchange
market participants. Similarly, it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Clearing Trading Permit Holder
Proprietary orders than those of other market participants (except
Customers and Market-Makers) because Clearing Trading Permit Holders
also have a number of obligations (such as membership with the Options
Clearing Corporation), significant regulatory burdens, and financial
obligations, that other market participants do not need to take on. The
Exchange also notes that the RUT fee amounts for each separate type of
market participant will be assessed equally to all such market
participants (i.e. all Broker-Dealer orders will be assessed the same
amount, all Joint Back-Office orders will be assessed the same amount,
etc.).
    The Exchange believes the proposed changes to AIM transaction fees
for Brokers Dealers, Non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers,
Professionals/Voluntary Professionals, JBOs and Customers are
reasonable because the amounts are still lower than assessed for AIM
transactions in other proprietary products.\9\ The Exchange believes
it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess lower fees for
AIM executions as compared to electronic executions because AIM is a
price-improvement mechanism, which the Exchange wishes to encourage and
support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assessing the Floor Brokerage Fee of $0.04 per contract for non-
crossed orders and $0.02 per contract for crossed orders to Floor
Brokers (and not other market participants) trading RUT orders is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because only Floor Brokers
are statutorily capable of representing orders in the trading crowd,
for which they charge a commission. Moreover, this fee is already
assessed, in the same amounts, to the other products in Underlying
Symbol List A.
    Increasing the Index License Surcharge Fee from $0.30 to $0.45 per
contract to RUT transactions is reasonable because the Exchange still
pays more for the RUT license than the amount of the proposed RUT Index
License Surcharge Fee (meaning that the Exchange will be subsidizing
the costs of the RUT license). This increase is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the increased amount will be assessed
to all market participants to whom the RUT Surcharge applies. Not
applying the RUT Index License Surcharge Fee to Customer orders is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because this is designed to
attract Customer RUT orders, which increases liquidity and provides
greater trading opportunities to all market participants.
    Excepting RUT from the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale, the
Marketing Fee, the Fee Cap, and the exemption from fees for
facilitation orders is reasonable because other Underlying Symbol List
A products (i.e., other products that are exclusively-listed) are
excepted from those same items. This is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for the same reason; it seems equitable to except RUT
from items on the Fees Schedule from which other proprietary products
are also excepted.
    Applying to RUT the CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale is
reasonable because it also applies to other Underlying Symbol List A
products. This is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the
same reason; it seems equitable to apply to RUT the same items on the
Fees Schedule that apply to Underlying Symbol List A options classes
(i.e., proprietary options classes that are not listed on other
exchanges).
    The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to continue to include RUT in the calculation of the
qualifying volume for the Floor Broker Trading Permit Fees rebate
because the Exchange wishes to support and encourage open-outcry
trading of RUT, which allows for price improvement and has a number of
positive impacts on the market system.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed change to relocate the
RUT fees from the ``Index Options Rate Table- All Index Products
Excluding Underlying Symbol List A'' to the ``Specified Proprietary
Index Options Rate Table- Underlying Symbol List A'' and make other
technical conforming changes to the Fees Schedule makes clear to market
participants that RUT is now part of Underlying Symbol List A and
reduces potential confusion as to which Rate Table applies. The
alleviation of potential confusion will remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different fees
are assessed to different market participants in some circumstances,
these different market participants have different obligations and
different circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market-Makers
have quoting obligations that other market participants do not have.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because RUT will
now be exclusively listed on CBOE (and C2). To the extent that the
proposed changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome
to become CBOE market participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule

change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-036. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the 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-CBOE-2015-036 and should be
submitted on or before May 7, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08703 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35880-35881]
[DOCID:fr22jn06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-365-000; Docket Nos. CP06-366-000; CP06-376-000; CP06-
377-000]

Bradwood Landing LLC; NorthernStar Energy LLC; Notice of
Application

June 15, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 5, 2006, Bradwood Landing LLC (Bradwood
Landing) 905 Commercial Street, Astoria, Oregon 97103, filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), in Docket No. CP06-
365-000, an application under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act and part
153 of the Commission's regulations for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity seeking authorization to site, construct and
operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal located in Bradwood,
Clatsop County, Oregon, for the purpose of importing LNG into the
United States. Bradwood Landing also requests approval of the Terminal
as the place of entry for imported LNG supplies.
    Also, take notice that on June 5, 2006, NorthernStar Energy LLC
(NorthernStar), also located at 905 Commercial Street, Astoria, Oregon
97103, filed in Docket Nos. CP06-366-000, CP06-376-000, and CP06-377-
000 an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and parts
157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations for: (1) A certificate of
public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction,
installation, ownership, and operation of the Bradwood Landing Pipeline
and other facilities, (2) a blanket certificate to construct, operate,
and/or abandon certain eligible facilities, and services related
thereto; and (3) a blanket certificate to provide open-access firm
transportation services. NorthernStar also requests authorization of
the initial rates for transportation service and terms and conditions
of service proposed in the pro forma tariff. The proposed Bradwood
Landing Pipeline is an approximately 34-mile long pipeline which will
transport natural gas from the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal to the
Northwest Pipeline Corporation, an interstate natural gas pipeline in
Cowlitz County, Washington.
    The application is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Gary
R. Coppedge, Bradwood Landing LLC and NorthernStar Energy LLC, 905
Commercial Street, Astoria, Oregon 97103, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax
(503) 325-9697.
    On March 18, 2005, the Commission staff granted Bradwood Landing's
and NorthernStar's request to utilize the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF05-10-000 to
staff activities involving the Bradwood Landing LNG Terminal. Now, as
of the filing of this application on June 5, 2006, the NEPA Pre-Filing
Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this
proceeding will be conducted in Docket Nos. CP06-365-000, CP06-366-000,
CP06-376-000, and CP06-377-000 as noted in the caption of this Notice.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date listed below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of this filing and all subsequent filings made with
the Commission and must mail a copy of all

filing to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding.
Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission
orders in the proceeding.
    However, other persons do not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to this
project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties
directly involved in the protest.
    Persons may also wish to comment further only on the environmental
review of this project. Environmental commenters will be placed on the
Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of
environmental documents issued by the Commission, and will be notified
of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review
process. Those persons, organizations, and agencies who submitted
comments during the NEPA Pre-Filing Process in Docket No. PF05-10-000
are already on the Commission staff's environmental mailing list for
the proceeding in the above dockets and may file additional comments on
or before the below listed comment date. Environmental commenters will
not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other
parties. However, environmental commenters are also not parties to the
proceeding and will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or non-environmental documents issued by the Commission.
Further, they will not have the right to seek court review of any final
order by Commission in this proceeding.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: July 6, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9813 Filed 6-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Year State Species Metric TonsPounds $ 1980 Delaware SPOT 2.4 5,300 2,530 1980 New JerseySPOT 1.1 2,400 528 1980 New York SPOT 0.5 1,100 550 1981 Delaware SPOT 5 11,100 2,775 1981 New JerseySPOT 2.7 6,000 2,611 1982 Delaware SPOT 1.1 2,500 1,575 1982 New JerseySPOT 0.8 1,800 348 1983 New JerseySPOT 0.4 800 369 1984 New JerseySPOT 0 100 16 1985 Delaware SPOT 7.8 17,200 5,160 1985 New JerseySPOT 1.1 2,400 452 1986 Delaware SPOT 39.2 86,400 30,259 1986 New JerseySPOT 3 6,600 1,656 1987 Delaware SPOT 63.5 140,100 36,309 1987 New JerseySPOT 7.2 15,900 4,084 1988 Delaware SPOT 17.6 38,700 19,967 1988 New JerseySPOT 0.7 1,600 567 1989 Delaware SPOT 13.2 29,000 12,829 1989 New JerseySPOT 3.7 8,200 3,645 1990 Delaware SPOT 11.3 24,900 6,021 1990 New JerseySPOT 4.1 9,039 2,365 1991 Delaware SPOT 107.1 236,200 75,504 1991 New JerseySPOT 24.7 54,433 18,196 1992 Delaware SPOT 43.1 95,000 32,386 1992 New JerseySPOT 46.4 102,213 35,172 1993 Delaware SPOT 10 22,000 5,500 1993 New JerseySPOT 4.9 10,900 2,502 1993 New York SPOT 0 63 24 1994 Delaware SPOT 45.5 100,400 56,006 1994 New JerseySPOT 14.2 31,408 16,468 1995 Delaware SPOT 28.1 62,000 34,152 1995 New JerseySPOT 13.7 30,151 15,802 1995 New York SPOT 0 22 15 1996 New JerseySPOT 0.5 1,149 526 1996 New York SPOT 0.1 318 70 1997 Delaware SPOT 16.2 35,686 19,466 1997 New JerseySPOT 2.8 6,175 3,592 1997 New York SPOT 0.1 189 126 1998 Delaware SPOT 63.7 140,363 59,715 1998 New JerseySPOT 12.5 27,582 11,312 1998 New York SPOT 0.3 579 354 1999 Delaware SPOT 23.4 51,534 24,009 1999 New JerseySPOT 3.5 7,822 3,712 2000 Delaware SPOT 14.6 32,290 16,773 2000 New JerseySPOT 6.3 13,852 8,312 2000 New York SPOT 0.4 939 217 2001 Delaware SPOT 35.5 78,272 51,338 2001 New JerseySPOT 9.1 20,034 13,179 2001 New York SPOT 0.1 160 37 2002 Delaware SPOT 6.3 13,780 8,107 2002 New JerseySPOT 0.6 1,326 866 2002 New York SPOT 2.6 5,737 1,502 2003 Delaware SPOT 34.9 77,031 46,013 2003 New JerseySPOT 2.7 6,003 2,957 2003 New York SPOT 0 35 13


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43613-43616]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0055; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-167-AD;
Amendment 39-17907; AD 2014-15-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of insufficient clearance between the fuel quantity
indicator (FQI) probes and the adjacent structure and metallic
components in the wing fuel tanks. This AD requires a one-time detailed
visual inspection for sufficient clearance between FQI probes on both
the left-hand side and right-hand side of the trim horizontal
stabilizer and the adjacent structure and metallic components in the
fuel tanks, and modification if necessary. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct insufficient clearance, which could lead to
electrical arcing in a fuel tank during a lightning strike, which could
result in ignition and consequent fire or explosion in the fuel tank.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 2, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 2,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0055; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A310-
304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10431).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0188, dated August 19, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information to
correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus

Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Airbus investigations on A300 aeroplanes revealed insufficient
clearance between the Fuel Quantity Indicator (FQI) probes and
adjacent structure or metallic components in the wing fuel tanks.
A300-600 and A310 aeroplanes are also affected as they are identical
in design.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
electric arcing in a fuel tank in case of lightning strike, which
could result in ignition and consequent fire or explosion in the
fuel tank.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A300-28-0080, SB A300-28-6065 and SB A310-28-
2145 and DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civil]
France issued [an] AD * * * to cover A300 aeroplanes and [an] AD * *
* to cover A300-600 and A310 aeroplanes (both EASA ADs were later
revised). [Both EASA ADs correspond to FAA AD 2004-05-05, Amendment
39-13499 (69 FR 10319, dated March 5, 2004)].
    Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, further analysis showed that
they do not cover all potentially affected aeroplanes: A310
aeroplanes with optional Mod. no. 12248 embodied were excluded from
the applicability of [a] DGAC France AD * * * but are potentially
affected, and therefore addressed through this [EASA] AD.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time [detailed visual] inspection of the affected aeroplanes for
sufficient clearance between FQI probes [on both the left-hand (LH)
side and right-hand (RH) side of the trim horizontal stabilizer] and
adjacent structure/metallic parts and, depending on findings,
modification of the FQI probes.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0055-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 10431, February 25,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (79 FR 10431, February 25, 2014), we proposed to
prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to
correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval
provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify
the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the
phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval
(DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required
repairs for the proposed AD.
    No comments were provided to the NPRM (79 FR 10431, February 25,
2014) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
another NPRM, Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013), in which the commenter stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed that paragraph and
retitled it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now
clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a
method approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
or Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM discussed previously, Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013), pointed out
that in many cases the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the
foreign authority's MCAI might have been issued some time before the
FAA AD. Therefore, the DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an
approved repair, developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition,
before the FAA AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with
the FAA AD, the operator would be required to go back to the
manufacturer's DOA and obtain a new approval document, adding time and
expense to the compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the

unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such requirements will be
adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process, including notice-and-
comment procedures, when appropriate. We also have decided not to
include a generic reference to either the ``delegated agent'' or ``DAH
with State of Design Authority design organization approval,'' but
instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by
the State of Design Authority for the DAH in the Contacting the
Manufacturer paragraph of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 10431, February 25, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 10431, February 25, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 2 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $1,360, or $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 that 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0055; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-15-05 Airbus: Amendment 39-17907. Docket No. FAA-2014-0055;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-167-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 2, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes, certificated in any category, on which Airbus
Modification Number 12248 has been embodied.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of insufficient clearance
between the fuel quantity indicator (FQI) probes and the adjacent
structure and metallic components in the wing fuel tanks. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct insufficient clearance, which
could lead to electrical arcing in a fuel tank during a lightning
strike, which could result in ignition and consequent fire or
explosion in the fuel tank.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Modification

    Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, do a one-
time detailed visual inspection for clearance between the FQI probes
located in the trimmable horizontal stabilizer tank and the adjacent
structure and metallic components, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2145,
Revision 01, dated March 4, 2003.
    (1) If the clearance of an FQI probe is found to be 3.0
millimeters (mm) (0.118 inch) or more: No further action is required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) If the clearance of an FQI probe is found to be 2.5 mm (0.98
inch) or more, and less than 3.0 mm (0.118 inch): Before further
flight, loosen the probe screws and move the probe up and down to
get the required minimum gap of 3.0 mm (0.118 inch), in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-28-2145, Revision 01, dated March 4, 2003.
    (3) If the clearance of an FQI probe is found to be less than
2.5 mm (0.118 inch): Before further flight, modify each affected FQI
probe by installing new FQI probe supports, in accordance with Step
3.C., ``Repair,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A310-28-2145, Revision 01, dated March 4, 2003.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-
2145, dated August 21, 2001, which is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-
0188, dated August 19, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may
be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0055-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2145, Revision 01, dated
March 4, 2003.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 13, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17313 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [Dr. P.V. Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Huntsman Corp.

IN-10605

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-10605) from Huntsman Corp., 8600 Gosling Rd., The Woodlands, TX  77381 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR Part 180.

To establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Tall oil, polymer with polyethylene glycol and succinic anhydride monopolyisobutylene derivs., minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 1400; CAS Reg. No. 1398573-80-2 under 40 CFR §180.960 when used as an inert ingredient surfactant in food use pesticide formulations in or on all the raw agricultural commodities.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	2. Analytical method. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Tall oil, polymer with polyethylene glycol and succinic anhydride monopolyisobutylene derivs. conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers. 	1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment. 	2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. 	3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii). 	4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize. 	5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. 	6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MWn) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.  	7. The polymer does not contain fluorine, so 40CFR 723.250(d)(6) does not apply. 	Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e)(1).  The polymer's number average MW of 1400 is greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10% oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.  The polymer contains one aliphatic hydroxyl reactive functional group, as allowed in 40CFR 723.250(e)(1)(ii)(A).

	2. Genotoxicty. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Not expected based on the fact that this polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	i. Food. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	ii. Drinking water. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

	2. Infants and children. [This polymer meets the 40 CFR 723.250 criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are no known international tolerances for this polymer.]


Site Visit Report

	Eddystone Generating Station

1 Industrial Highway

Eddystone, PA

January 23, 2008

Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of
developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that
reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse
environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing
facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric
generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water
intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the
site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the
selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting
facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or
technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  Eddystone Generating
Station (Eddystone) was selected for a site visit due to its use of
wedgewire screens and its source water body type.

Facility Description

Eddystone is located on a 100-acre site on the Delaware River just south
of the Philadelphia International Airport.  Currently owned by Exelon
and employing approximately 140 people, the facility began operations in
1959.

The facility’s permit (PA0013714, expired November 6, 2006) is being
renewed.  Eddystone is required to submit information similar to that
required under the now-suspended Phase II rule (source waterbody data,
impingement mortality and entrainment, design and construction plan) in
July 2008.

Electricity Generation and Transmission

Eddystone has 4 generating units.  Units 1 and 2 are nearly identical
supercritical steam boiler-turbine generator coal-fired units and were
built in 1959 and 1960.  These units burn coal from western Pennsylvania
and produce 249 MW and 302 MW, respectively, and have a capacity
utilization rate (CUR) averaging 53% over the last 5 years.  Generally,
one unit is taken offline each year for a 5 week routine maintenance
period.

Units 3 and 4 are peaking units that can use either natural gas or fuel
oil and were built in 1974 and 1976.  These units each produce 380 MW
and historically have a CUR under 15%.

Eddystone also has 4 combustion turbines onsite for additional peaking
and blackout start-up capability.  Each combustion turbine is capable of
producing 15 MW and operate on No. 2 fuel oil. These units do not use
cooling water.

PECO owns the switchyard and distributes the electricity to PJM.

Cooling Water Intake Structure

Units 1 and 2 withdraw water through 16 cylindrical wedgewire tee
screens located on a bulkhead at the shoreline.  These screens were
retrofitted in the early 1990s, when the bulkhead was constructed in
front of the existing intake structure for these units (a traveling
screen configuration similar to that at Units 3 and 4).  To accommodate
the wedgewire screens, the bulkhead is approximately 2-3 times wider
than the original CWIS for Units 1 and 2.  The wedgewire screens are
each approximately 20 feet long and 6 feet in diameter and have a slot
width of 6 mm (1/4 in).  At low water, the screens are approximately 7
feet below the surface, and are 4 feet from the river bottom.  An
automated airburst backwash system sequentially cleans the screens to
follow the movement of the tides and ensure that purged materials are
swept away.  Inspections by divers following dredging operations
indicated that siltation underneath the wedgewire screens does not
appear to be an issue.  Facility representatives stated that the
wedgewire screens have been essentially maintenance free.

Units 3 and 4 employ a total of 8 traditional traveling screens with a
standard 3/8” mesh.  This CWIS also uses several design features to
reduce impingement and entrainment: incorporating lateral escape
passages behind the trash rack, increasing the number of screens to
reduce the intake velocity, and locating the intake entirely flush with
the shoreline (instead of slightly set back).  There is no fish return
for Units 3 and 4, as the permit requires that screened material be
disposed in a landfill.

All four units use once-through cooling.  Units 1 and 2 have a combined
design intake flow (DIF) of 634 million gallons per day (mgd) (317 MGD
each), with a through-screen velocity of 0.4 feet per second (fps).
Units 3 and 4 have a combined DIF of 834 mgd (417 MGD each), with a
through-screen velocity of approximately 0.6 feet per second (fps).
Biocides are used once per day in each unit.  Heated effluent is
discharged through a combined return line for all intakes that extends
300 feet into the river.  The delta T between the intake water
temperature and point of discharge ranges from 12-15 degrees.

Impingement and Entrainment Information

Impingement and entrainment studies were conducted in the mid 1970s and
found similar species assemblages to other mid-Atlantic facilities.
Eddystone representatives stated that the installation of wedgewire
screens at Units 1 and 2 has essentially eliminated impingement.

From April 2005 to April 2006, Eddystone conducted a study to quantify
the entrainment reduction realized by the installation of the wedgewire
screens for Units 1 and 2.  By comparing the entrainment densities to
those seen in samples at Units 3 and 4, the facility noted at least a
40% reduction in entrainment.

In general, the species found were the same as in previous studies,
recognizing that water quality has significantly improved and
populations are higher than in the past.  Additionally, the previous
studies had been conducted in a period of low flow and higher salinity,
suggesting that more estuarine species may be found in the vicinity of
the intake than under normal flow conditions.

Facility representatives stated that additional study results indicate
that the enhanced design features incorporated into the CWIS for Units 3
and 4 have reduced impingement by 30-60% over conventional
configurations.

Prior to selecting wedgewire screens, Eddystone considered a number of
technologies for retrofitting Units 1 and 2, and found that wedgewire
screens were the best choice based on an evaluation of costs and
benefits.  At the time, it was the largest wedgewire screen installation
in the United States and flume studies were conducted to help customize
the design criteria to best meet the facility’s needs.  Facility
representatives estimated the length of downtime for the retrofit to be
about 4-6 months, but noted that issues unrelated to the CWIS retrofit
were also addressed during that time.

In order to comply with the now-suspended Phase II rule, Eddystone would
have demonstrated that Units 1 and 2 meet the impingement and
entrainment reductions over the calculation baseline, and that Units 3
and 4 (not subject to entrainment requirements due to the low CUR) also
exceeded the performance of the calculation baseline.

Cooling Tower Feasibility

Facility representatives stated that cooling towers have not been
extensively considered.  They noted that the existing activities at the
site would make siting difficult: the coal pile, transmission yard, oil
storage tanks, and other structures occupy much of the open space.
Additionally, the tower design might require plume abatement due to the
proximity to the Philadelphia airport, which would increase the size of
the tower array.

Attachments

Attachment A		List of Attendees

Attachment B		Aerial Photo

Attachment C		Slideshow Presentation

Attachment D		Site Visit Photos

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA

Jan Matuszko, EPA

Ron Jordan, EPA

Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech

Shari Goodwin, Tetra Tech

Bob Matty, Exelon

Joseph Kuklinski, Exelon

Walt Masny, Exelon

Diana Hart, Exelon

David Piller, Exelon

David Stewart, Exelon

John Tissue, Exelon

Bob Goshey, Exelon

Ed Veneziale, Exelon

Ron Blye, Normandeau Associates

Attachment B—Aerial Photo

Please see DCN 10-6507B accompanying this document.

Attachment C--Slideshow Presentation

Please see DCN 10-6507A accompanying this document.

Attachment D--Site Visit Photos

Please see DCNs 10-6507C-N accompanying this document.

 Facility representatives added that 40% is the lowest reduction
statistically supported by the data; some results indicated even higher
reductions.

 Facility representatives estimated that the wedgewire screen retrofit
costs were approximately $4.5 million.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82009-82010]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32772]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9245-1]

Proposed Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement Agreement; Request for Public
Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement
agreement to address a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD). CBD filed suit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The proposed settlement agreement
establishes deadlines for EPA to take action relating to attainment
determinations for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10,
as set forth in the proposed agreement.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by January 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2010-1066, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Silverman, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2366A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    On April 29, 2010, CBD filed a complaint in the northern district
of California alleging that EPA had failed to perform mandatory duties
related to PM-10 nonattainment areas, including attainment
determinations (as of the applicable attainment date) for various
areas, and promulgation of FIPs for the Paul Spur/Douglas and Nogales
areas in Arizona. Center for Biological Diversity v. Jackson (No. 3:10-
CV-01846-MMC) (N.D. Cal.). CBD has since agreed that a number of its
claims have been resolved by EPA action. With respect to the remaining
claims, EPA is agreeing to sign final rules by various dates, which
rules would determine whether the following areas attained the PM-10
standard by the areas' applicable attainment dates: Hayden, AZ, Eagle
River, AK, Columbia Falls, MT, Libby, MT, Nogales, AZ, Reno, NV, and
Paul Spur/Douglas, AZ. EPA is also agreeing to sign final rules that
promulgate Federal Implementation Plans for the Douglas portion of the
Paul Spur/Douglas (AZ) area and for the Nogales (AZ) area by July 27,
2012 unless EPA takes other final action by that date. (EPA has already
completed certain of the actions described in the proposed settlement
agreement.)
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that within 10 days of
signature, the parties agree to file a joint motion in the district
court to administratively close this case. CBD further agrees to file a
motion for voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, with respect to all
claims in the Complaint within 30 days after notice appears in the
Federal Register of EPA taking the last rulemaking action required
under the proposed Agreement. If EPA fails to meet its obligations
under the proposed Settlement Agreement, CBD's sole remedy is to
reinstate its action.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who are not named as parties
to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may
withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if
the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice
determines that consent to this settlement agreement should be
withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How can I get a copy of the Settlement agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2010-1066) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the
official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy
is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained
in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Patricia A. Embrey,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-32772 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34753-34755]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15535]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0114; Product Identifier 2017-NM-167-AD; Amendment
39-19335; AD 2018-15-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The
Boeing Company Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent
1000 engines. This AD was prompted by a report of failures of the inner
fixed structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal
insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser
(TR). This AD requires an inspection to determine the part number of
the IFS forward upper fire seal, and applicable on-condition actions.
We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 27, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 27,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0114.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0114; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to The Boeing Company Model
787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2018 (83 FR
8017). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failures of the IFS forward
upper fire seal and damage to thermal insulation blankets in the
forward upper area of the TR. The NPRM proposed to require an
inspection to determine the part number of the IFS forward upper fire
seal, and applicable on-condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IFS forward upper
fire seal, which causes the loss of seal pressurization and allows fan
bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan bypass air
entering the engine core compartment could degrade the ability to
detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an uncontrolled
fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine core compartment
could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket, resulting in thermal
damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent release of engine exhaust
components, and consequent damage to critical areas of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing supported the intent of the NPRM.

Request To Include Additional Action

    An anonymous commenter requested that an additional action be
included in the proposed AD. The commenter proposed that Boeing develop
an inspection of the thermal blankets and fire seals to ensure the
integrity and safe operation of these components. The commenter
expressed concern that a thermal blanket could fail due to insufficient
sealing by the fire seals that have incorporated the modification
mandated by this AD. The modification of the fire seals is specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated
November 1, 2017 (``BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001'').
    The commenter stated that the post-modification fire seals are
still failing. The commenter is aware of 30 findings of fire seal/
thermal blanket damage across a fleet size of 16 airplanes. The
commenter noted that there were 18 findings prior to incorporation of
the modification of the fire seals specified in BASB B787-81205-
SB780033-00, Issue 001, and 12 findings after incorporation of that
modification. The commenter is concerned that the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD could still exist after accomplishment of the
mandatory modification.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We do not want to
delay the publication of this AD by adding a new inspection requirement
that will require additional time for public comment. We have
determined that the modification of the fire seals required by this AD
addresses the design issue of the fire seal end cap that resulted in
failure of the IFS forward upper fire seal and damage to the thermal
blanket. We are aware of operator reports that damage to the IFS
forward upper fire seal and

thermal blanket has been discovered on airplanes on which the
modification specified in BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, has
been done. The airplane manufacturer is investigating the root cause of
this damage and, when the root cause is identified, we may consider
further rulemaking at that time. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We
have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-
SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated November 1, 2017. This service
information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the
part number of the IFS forward upper fire seal and applicable on-
condition actions. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $680          $8,840
                                      = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that will be required. We have no way of determining the number
of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680 (fire seal replacement, 4 per airplane)....          $4,532           $5,212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-15-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19335; Docket No. FAA-
2018-0114; Product Identifier 2017-NM-167-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 27, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, powered by Rolls Royce
Trent 1000 engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
Exhaust System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the inner fixed
structure (IFS) forward upper fire seal and damage to thermal
insulation blankets in the forward upper area of the thrust reverser
(TR). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the IFS forward
upper fire seal, which causes the loss of seal pressurization and
allows fan bypass air to enter the engine core compartment. Fan
bypass air entering the engine core compartment could degrade the
ability to detect and extinguish an engine fire, resulting in an
uncontrolled fire. Furthermore, fan bypass air entering the engine
core compartment could cause damage to the TR insulation blanket,
resulting in thermal damage to the TR inner wall, the subsequent
release of engine exhaust components, and consequent damage to
critical areas of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    For Model 787-8 and 787-9 series airplanes identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001, dated
November 1, 2017 (``BASB B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001''):
Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do all
applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance)
in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of BASB
B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue 001.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    For Model 787 series airplanes powered by Rolls Royce Trent 1000
engines, as of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
a thrust reverser with an IFS forward upper fire seal having part
number (P/N) 725Z3171-127 or P/N 725Z3171-128.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this
AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB780033-00, Issue
001, dated November 1, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 13, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-15535 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P