[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43974-43979]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2961; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-145-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-15-
13, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100B SUD,
747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes; and Model 747-200B
series airplanes having a stretched upper deck. AD 2012-15-13 currently
requires inspections for cracking and discrepancies of certain
fasteners; modification of the frame-to-tension-tie joints; repetitive
post-modification inspections; related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary; and repetitive inspections for cracking in the
tension tie channels, and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes,
AD 2012-15-13 also requires an inspection to determine if the angle is
installed correctly, and re-installation if necessary; and an
inspection at the fastener locations where the tension tie previously
attached to the frame prior to certain modifications, and repair if
necessary. Since we issued AD 2012-15-13, an evaluation indicated that
the upper deck is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This
proposed AD would add a new inspection for cracking in the tension tie
channels and post-modification inspections of the modified tension ties
for cracking, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
prevent fatigue cracking of the tension ties, shear webs, and frames of
the upper deck, which could result in rapid decompression and reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 8,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2961.

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-2015-
2961; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2961;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-145-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On July 23, 2012, we issued AD 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77
FR 47267, August 8, 2012), for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-
100B SUD, 747-300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes; and Model
747-200B series airplanes having a stretched upper deck. AD 2012-15-13
requires repetitive open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels,
and repair if necessary. For certain airplanes, AD 2012-15-13 also
requires a one-time angle inspection to determine if the angle is
installed correctly, and re-installation if necessary; and a one-time
open hole HFEC inspection at the fastener locations where the tension
tie previously attached to the frame prior to certain modifications,
and repair if necessary. AD 2012-15-13 resulted from reports of cracked
and severed tension ties, broken fasteners, and cracks in the frame,
shear web, and shear ties adjacent to tension ties for the upper deck.
We issued AD 2012-15-13 to detect and correct cracking of the tension
ties, shear webs, and frames of the upper deck, which could result in
rapid decompression and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Widespread Fatigue Damage

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely
occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough
without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design
approval holders (DAHs) establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the
engineering data that support the structural maintenance program.
Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its
LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

Actions Since AD 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8,
2012), Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267,
August 8, 2012), specified that we considered the requirements of that
AD

``interim action.'' AD 2012-15-13 explained that we might consider
further rulemaking if final action is later identified. Since we issued
AD 2012-15-13, an evaluation by the DAH indicated that the upper deck
is subject to WFD. We have determined that it is necessary to mandate a
new inspection for cracking in the tension tie channels, repetitive
post-modification inspections of the modified tension ties for
cracking, and repair if necessary.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 2,
dated May 13, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
modifying the tension tie and frame at certain center sections. 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 of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2012-
15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012). For certain
airplanes, this proposed AD would mandate a new inspection for cracking
in the forward and aft tension tie channels, repetitive post-
modification inspections of the modified tension ties for cracking, and
repair if necessary. Refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014, for details on the procedures
and compliance times.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to
WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cost per
            Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost         product       Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained modification in AD    Between 257 and 263    Between $341,334  Between          Between $24,332,993 and
 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-      work-hours = between   and $345,490.     $363,179 and     $24,645,615.
 17142 (77 FR 47267, August     $21,845 and $22,355.                     $367,845.
 8, 2012) (67 airplanes).
Retained                       6 work-hours x $85     $0..............  $510 per         $34,170 per inspection
 post[dash]modification         per hour = $510 per                      inspection       cycle.
 inspections in AD 2012-15-     inspection cycle.                        cycle.
 13, Amendment 39-17142 (77
 FR 47267, August 8, 2012)
 (67 airplanes).
New proposed inspection......  10 work-hours x $85    $0..............  $850...........  $102,000.
                                per hour = $850.
New proposed                   216 work-hours x $85   $0..............  $18,360 per      $2,203,200 per
 post[dash]modification eddy    per hour = $18,360                       inspection       inspection cycle.
 current inspections.           per inspection cycle.                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-2961; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-145-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 8,
2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267,
August 8, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100B SUD, 747-
300, 747-400, and 747-400D series airplanes; and Model 747-200B
series airplanes having a stretched upper deck; certificated in any
category; excluding airplanes that have been converted to a large
cargo freighter configuration.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracked and severed tension
ties, broken fasteners, and cracks in the frame, shear web, and
shear ties adjacent to tension ties for the upper deck. This AD was
also prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH),
which indicated that the upper deck is subject to widespread fatigue
damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of
the tension ties, shear webs, and frames of the upper deck, which
could result in rapid decompression and reduced structural integrity
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. For all airplanes: Do detailed inspections for cracking
or discrepancies of the fasteners in the tension ties, shear webs,
and frames at body stations (STA) 1120 through 1220, and related
investigative and corrective actions as applicable, by doing all
actions specified in and in accordance with ``Stage 1 Inspection''
of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, except as provided by paragraph
(k) of this AD; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. As of September 12, 2012 (the
effective date of AD 2012-15-13), only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, may be used to do
the actions required by this paragraph. Do the Stage 1 inspections
at the applicable times specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this
AD, except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 inspection required by
paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this
paragraph. Any applicable related investigative and corrective
actions must be done before further flight. Doing the modification
required by paragraph (p) of this AD terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, specifies a
compliance time relative to ``the original issue date on this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance before the specified
compliance time after April 26, 2006 (the effective date of AD 2006-
06-11, Amendment 39-14520 (71 FR 14367, March 22, 2006)).
    (2) For any airplane that reaches the applicable compliance time
for the initial Stage 2 inspection (as specified in Table 1,
Compliance Recommendations, under paragraph 1.E., of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005) before reaching
the applicable compliance time for the initial Stage 1 inspection:
Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2 inspection terminates the
Stage 1 inspections.

(h) Retained Compliance Time for Initial Stage 1 Inspection, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. Do the initial Stage 1 inspection at the earlier of the
times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Inspect at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005.
    (ii) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 250 flight cycles after November 28, 2007 (the effective date
of AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23,
2007)), whichever occurs later.
    (2) Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles.
    (ii) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, whichever occurs first,
after November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-23-18,
Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007)).

(i) Retained Compliance Times for Repetitive Stage 1 Inspections, With
No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. Repeat the Stage 1 inspection specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of
this AD, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 250 flight cycles, until the initial Stage 2
inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD has been done.
    (1) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 1 inspection has
not been accomplished as of November 28, 2007 (the effective date of
AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007)):
Do the next inspection before the accumulation of 10,000 total
flight cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after the initial Stage 1
inspection done in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes on which the initial Stage 1 inspection has
been accomplished as of November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD
2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007)): Do
the next inspection at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(i)(2)(i) or (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have accumulated fewer than 12,000 total
flight cycles as of November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD
2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007)): Do
the next inspection before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight
cycles, or within 250 flight cycles after November 28, 2007,
whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes that have accumulated 12,000 total flight
cycles or more as of November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD
2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007)): Do
the next inspection at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(A) and (i)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
    (A) Within 250 flight cycles after accomplishment of the initial
Stage 1 inspection.
    (B) Within 50 flight cycles or 20 days, whichever occurs first,
after November 28, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-23-18,
Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23, 2007)).

(j) Retained Repetitive Stage 2 Inspections, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. For all airplanes: Do detailed and high frequency eddy
current inspections for cracking or discrepancies of the fasteners
in the tension ties, shear webs, and frames at body stations 1120
through 1220, and related investigative and corrective actions as
applicable, by doing all actions specified in and in accordance with
``Stage 2 Inspection'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April 21, 2005, or Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14,
2010; except as provided by paragraph (k) of this AD. Do the initial
inspections at the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD. Repeat the Stage 2 inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated
April 21, 2005, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. As of September 12, 2012 (the
effective date of AD 2012-15-13), only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, may be used. Any
applicable related investigative and corrective actions must be done
before further flight. Accomplishment of the initial Stage 2
inspection ends the repetitive Stage 1 inspections. Doing the
modification required by paragraph (p) of this AD

terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after November 28, 2007 (the effective
date of AD 2007-23-18, Amendment 39-15266 (72 FR 65655, November 23,
2007)), whichever occurs later.
    (2) Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after September 12, 2012 (the effective
date of AD 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8,
2012)), whichever occurs later.

(k) Retained Exception to Corrective Action Instructions, With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. If any discrepancy, including but not limited to any
crack, broken fastener, loose fastener, or missing fastener is found
during any inspection required by paragraph (g), (h), (i), or (j) of
this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, dated April
21, 2005, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1,
dated January 14, 2010, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair the discrepancy using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(t) of this AD.

(l) Retained Stage 2 Inspection: Work at STA 1140, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. For all airplanes: Except as provided by paragraph (o)
of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,''
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated
January 14, 2010, do an open hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels
at 12 fastener locations inboard of the aluminum straps at STA 1140,
and before further flight do all applicable repairs. Do all actions
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at the time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010. Doing the modification required
by paragraph (p) of this AD terminates the inspection requirements
in this paragraph.

(m) Retained One-Time Inspection for Incorrectly Installed Angles, With
No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. For Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January
14, 2010: Except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD, at the
time specified in paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, do
a detailed inspection to determine if the angle is installed
correctly, and before further flight re-install all angles that were
installed incorrectly. Do all actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010.

(n) Retained One-time Inspection for Cracks in Frames at Previous
Tension Tie Locations, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. For Group 1, Configuration 2, airplanes; and Groups 2
and 3 airplanes; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010: Except as provided by
paragraph (o) of this AD, at the time specified in paragraph 1.E,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010, do an open hole HFEC inspection
for cracks at the fastener locations (STAs 1120, 1160, 1200, and
1220) where the tension tie previously attached to the frame prior
to modification to the Boeing Special Freighter or Boeing Converted
Freighter configuration, and before further flight do all applicable
repairs. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision
1, dated January 14, 2010. Doing the modification required by
paragraph (p) of this AD terminates the one-time inspection
requirements in this paragraph.

(o) Retained Exception to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2507,
Revision 1, Dated January 14, 2010, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
no changes. Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2507, Revision 1, dated January 14, 2010,
specifies a compliance time relative to ``the Revision 1 date of
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after September 12, 2012 (the effective
date of AD 2012-15-13).

(p) Retained Modification and Post-Modification Repetitive Inspections,
With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (p) of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), with
revised service information. Except as provided by paragraphs (p)(1)
and (p)(2) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in
paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, modify the frame-to-
tension-tie joints at STAs 1120 through 1220; do all related
investigative and applicable corrective actions; do the repetitive
post-modification detailed inspections for cracking of the tension
tie and frame structure and all applicable corrective actions; and
do the additional modification. Do all actions in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014. Modifying the
frame-to-tension-tie joints at STAs 1120 through 1220 terminates the
repetitive inspection requirements of paragraphs (g) and (j) of this
AD, the inspection requirements of paragraph (l) of this AD, and the
one-time inspection requirement of paragraph (n) of this AD. As of
the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014, may be used to
accomplish the actions specified in this paragraph.
    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated August 4, 2011, specifies a
compliance time relative to ``the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after September 12, 2012 (the effective date of AD
2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012)).
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 1, dated
August 4, 2011, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014, specifies to contact Boeing for
repair instructions or additional modification requirements: Before
further flight, repair the cracking or do the additional actions
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (t) of this AD.

(q) Retained Credit for Previous Actions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the credit provided by paragraph (q) of
AD 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012),
with no changes. This paragraph provides credit for the
corresponding actions required by paragraph (p) of this AD, if those
actions were done before September 12, 2012 (the effective date of
AD 2012-15-13), using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
dated January 8, 2009.

(r) New Repetitive Post-Modification Eddy Current Inspections

    Do an eddy current inspection of all areas of the modified
tension ties for cracking, in accordance with Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014. Do the inspection at the
time specified in Table 2 of paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13,
2014, except where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014, specifies a
compliance time relative to ``the Revision 2 date of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD. If any crack is
found, before further flight, repair the crack using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(t) of this AD. If no crack is found, repeat the inspection
thereafter at the intervals specified in paragraph 1.E,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559,
Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014.

(s) New One-Time Surface HFEC Inspections

    Do a surface HFEC inspection of the tension tie center section,
for cracking in the forward and aft tension tie channels between STA
1120 through 1220, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision
2, dated May 13, 2014. Do the inspection at the applicable time
specified in Table 1 or Table 3 of paragraph 1.E, ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13,
2014, except where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2559, Revision 2, dated May 13, 2014,
specifies a compliance time relative to ``the Revision 2 date of
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD. If
any crack is found, before further flight, repair the crack using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (t) of this AD.

(t) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (u)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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 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, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-15-13, Amendment 39-
17142 (77 FR 47267, August 8, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.

(u) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 16, 2015.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-18152 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 34 (Friday, February 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9345-9346]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03581]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-004]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed February 7, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through February 14, 2022 10 a.m.
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220015, Draft, FERC, LA, MP66-69 Compression Relocation and
Modification Amendment and the MP33 Compressor Station Modification
Amendment Project, Comment Period Ends: 04/04/2022, Contact: Office of
External Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220016, Draft, TVA, TN, Clinch River Nuclear Site Advanced
Nuclear Reactor Technology Park, Comment Period Ends: 04/04/2022,
Contact: J. Taylor Johnson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220017, Second Revised Draft, USACE, FL, Lake Okeechobee
Watershed Restoration Project Draft Revised Integrated Project
Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement, Comment
Period Ends: 04/04/2022, Contact: Melissa Nasuti<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-03581 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


VIA E-MAIL

April 13, 2010

Mr. Jeffrey A. Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

Mr. William Neuffer

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

RE:	CBI and Related Issues in Enclosure 1 of ICR

Dear Messrs. Telander and Neuffer:

The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”)
appreciates the opportunity to discuss with the Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”) specific questions set forth in Enclosure 1 of the
draft Information Collection Request (“ICR”).  The modification or
removal of some of these questions would help to expedite the ICR
process.  Set forth below are the questions that NAIMA would like to
discuss with EPA.

The specific objections set forth in this letter share two elements:
first, the relevance of these requests to residual risk or emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”) is not evident and an explanation
is merited; and second, the information requested, in most cases, needs
to be treated as confidential business information (“CBI”).  Even
where some of this data can be treated as CBI, NAIMA offers alternatives
that can be equally effective in meeting EPA’s needs while providing
more rigorous protection to sensitive trade information.

ENCLOSURE 1

Form A-2

EPA asks for the number of employees attached to a manufacturing
facility.  The number of employees is not relevant to residual risk.
Therefore, the non-public companies should not be burdened with
supplying this information.  Moreover, the number of employees is
sensitive/confidential information because the number of employees would
plainly speak to the level of ongoing production.  It is also
confidential business information.  The disclosure of this information
is even more troubling because the data would most likely be inaccurate.
 Production is down throughout the industry and any numbers given to EPA
would not accurately reflect typical production level employment.
Therefore, the information would not only be irrelevant to residual
risk, but would also not provide an accurate depiction of company
employment in a healthy economy.  If EPA is concerned about exposure to
HAPs in the workplace, NAIMA can authoritatively state that no employee
receives any exposure in excess of the applicable Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (“OSHA”) limit.  NAIMA and its members
have a history of responsible product stewardship as an industry and as
individual companies.  EPA’s residual risk process and MACT standard
setting are appropriately concerned with releases to the ambient air,
not OSHA-regulated work spaces.  Thus, the number of workers is
irrelevant and NAIMA requests that the question on employees be removed
from the ICR.

	Form B-2

EPA requests a list of raw materials and binder ingredients and the
proportion of each of those ingredients.  The specific and detailed
proportions used by each manufacturer are a carefully guarded trade
secret.  Historically, NAIMA has provided regulatory bodies an
aggregated average of the percentage of product formulas from data
collected by legal counsel.  This approach ensures EPA will know the
identity of the constituents without a proprietary list of detailed
proportions.  This approach has eliminated the risk of disclosing unique
trade secrets to a third party and avoids the need for the Agency to
take on the burden of managing confidential business information where
inadvertent disclosure may occur.  This approach also provides EPA with
information it needs – a list of the raw materials that go into
product formulations and an accurate estimate of the proportion of each
raw material ingredient.

	Form B-1, B-3, and B-4

NAIMA requests the “estimated remaining lifetime” and other rebuild
information be removed from the list of requested information.  This
information is not relevant to residual risk.  Fiber glass insulation
furnace rebuilds, though routine, are infrequent.  At the end of a
furnace’s lifecycle and during the subsequent furnace rebuild,
refractory linings are removed and replaced.  Certain repairs during a
furnace’s lifecycle may also necessitate the removal and/or
replacement of refractories, but such repairs are not furnace rebuilds.
Furnace and melter refractory rebricking is crucial to maintaining a
safe and reliable facility.  Refractory lining replacement is driven
largely by two inherent characteristics of the manufacturing process –
the high heat (approximately 2500 degrees Fahrenheit) and the alkaline
glass chemistry required to produce the molten glass that is used to
manufacture fiber glass insulation.  Other factors that affect the
frequency of rebuilds include the size of the furnace, firing (gas/oxy,
electric, etc.), the intensity of operations, and the corrosiveness of
the glass melt.  Ultimately, the furnace refractory bricks are eroded
during normal operation of the facility and must be routinely replaced.
Information concerning each member’s planned furnace rebuild dates is
proprietary, confidential business information.

Mineral wool companies do not use chrome-containing refractories to
rebuild cupolas as in the fiber glass industry; however, the liner of
the cupola may be replaced.

	Form B-8

EPA asks for a description of “any work practices, pollution
prevention techniques, and control strategies evaluated and/or
implemented at each process unit at your facility . . . you must specify
the year in which the facility implemented the practice.”  There are
no legal requirements to maintain records at the level of detail
requested by EPA.  Therefore, to request such extensive information is
onerous and burdensome.  NAIMA and its member companies are shouldering
a significant burden to respond to the legitimate data requests.  It is
unreasonable to impose such time-intensive exercises on the companies at
this time.  NAIMA requests that EPA modify the question to allow the
companies to provide information regarding work practices, pollution
prevention techniques, and control strategies that have actually been
implemented and that is available and responsive to the question.  In
addition, it seems the question on Form B-8 is repetitive of questions
on Forms B-3 through B-6.

Form C

On Forms C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-7, EPA asks for the amount and method
of wastewater and waste disposal.  The vast majority of wool fiberglass
and mineral wool manufacturers do not discharge wastewater that contains
or has been in contact with binder.  That water is recycled in the
production process.  The recycling system does not involve storing
wastewater in open reservoirs or collection ponds.  The closed-loop
systems, and in some facilities the holding tanks, are housed under the
roof of the manufacturing facility where any emissions would likely be
drawn into the collection stack and be counted with those emissions.  As
such, there are no binder-related air emissions from ponds.  There may
be small levels of emissions from the holding tanks associated with this
closed loop system.  Further, it is typical for the holding tank units
to include lids.  In other words, the likelihood of HAPs being released
from these wastewater systems is limited.  Under these conditions, the
relevance of wastewater discharges to a determination of residual risk
from air pollutant emissions is not apparent.  If EPA is concerned about
water pollution, it should not be explored in a Clean Air Act-related
ICR.

Form F

EPA requests highly sensitive cost, sales, and profit data that has no
relevance to residual risk.  Moreover, sales and profit data have no
relation to emissions.  Sales and profit data relate to economic
conditions.  In other words, it is possible for a facility to have a
high profit margin and healthy sales and very low emissions, and in
another year that same company could have low profits and sales and yet
have higher emissions than previous years.  NAIMA strongly objects to
providing EPA with sales, profit, and cost data because it is not
relevant to residual risk, emissions, or EPA’s mandate to regulate air
emissions.  In addition, it is confidential business information.
Moreover, much of the cost information requested by EPA is not data that
companies would possess.  Most accounting systems used in the industry
do not have the details requested by EPA.  Most companies within the
industry do not maintain its records in a manner that would allow this
data to be readily extracted.  The effort to supply EPA with relevant
data and information will require considerable time and resources.  It
is not equitable or prudent to divert those resources into areas that
will not produce any data relevant to an assessment of residual risk.
Therefore, NAIMA requests that these questions relating to sales,
profit, and costs be removed from the ICR.

As the wool fiberglass and mineral wool industries proceed with the
completion of the ICR, there may be additional inquires and requests for
clarification.  Therefore, NAIMA reserves the right to raise additional
issues in the future.  NAIMA also seeks clarification on how to handle
electronic filing of CBI.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

 NAIMA, “NAIMA’s Health and Safety Partnership Program,” Pub. No.
NO30, 12/02; G.E. Marchant, et al., “A Synthetic Vitreous Fiber (SVF)
Occupational Exposure Database: Implementing the SVF Health and Safety
Partnership Program,” Applied Occupational and Environment Hygiene,
17(4): 276-285, 2002.

 See Generally Fay V. Tooley, The Handbook of Glass Manufacture § 7 (3d
ed. 1984).

Messrs. Jeffrey A. Telander and William Neuffer

April 13, 2010

Page   PAGE  4

%

C

D

E

F

I

J

K

ü

û

ü

ᜀ▪  Suite 310  ▪  Alexandria, Virginia  22314  ▪  Tel: (703)
684-0084  ▪  Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65630-65631]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26530]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0152; FRL-9746-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; The 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the
Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the
District of Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted
by the District of Columbia, through the District Department of the
Environment (DDOE), on April 2, 2008. The emissions inventory is part
of the April 2, 2008 SIP revision that was submitted to meet
nonattainment requirements related to the District of Columbia's
portion of the Washington DC-MD-VA nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as DC Area or Area) for the 1997 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) SIP. EPA is approving the 2002
base year PM2.5 emissions inventory in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0152. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of the
Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th floor,
Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asrah Khadr,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50964), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the District of Columbia. The
NPR proposed approval of the 2002 base year emissions inventory portion
of the District of Columbia SIP revision. The formal SIP revision was
submitted by the District of Columbia on April 2, 2008.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The 2002 base year emissions inventory submitted by DDOE on April
2, 2008 includes emissions estimates that cover the general source
categories of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-
road mobile sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise
the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, coarse particles (PM10),
ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). EPA has
reviewed the results, procedures and methodologies for the base year
emissions inventory submitted by DDOE. The year 2002 was selected by
DDOE as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR
51.1008(b). A discussion of the emissions inventory development as well
as the emissions inventory can be found in Appendix B of the April 2,
2008 SIP submittal and in the NPR. Specific requirements of the base
year inventory and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the
NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on
the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 2002 base year PM2.5 emissions
inventory as a revision to the District of Columbia SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 31, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to the PM2.5 2002 base year
emissions inventory portion of the District of Columbia SIP may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 11, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
2. In Sec.  52.470, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding at
the end of the table an entry for 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) EPA-approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory material.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP      Applicable geographic       State                               Additional
             revision                        area          submittal date    EPA approval date      explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory  District of Columbia           4/2/08  10/30/12 [Insert page            Sec.
 for the 1997 fine particulate       portion of the                         number where the           52.474(e)
 matter (PM2.5) standard.            Washington DC-MD-VA                    document begins].
                                     1997 PM2.5
                                     nonattainment area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.474, paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.474  Base Year Emissions inventory.

* * * * *
    (e) EPA approves as a revision to the District of Columbia State
Implementation Plan the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the
District of Columbia portion of the Washington DC-MD-VA 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area submitted by
the District Department of the Environment on April 2, 2008. The 2002
base year emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover
the general source categories of point sources, non-road mobile
sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and biogenic sources.
The pollutants that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides
(NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PM2.5,
coarse particles (PM10), ammonia (NH3), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2).
[FR Doc. 2012-26530 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P