[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60971-60972]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13739-002]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study
Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major Original License.
    b. Project No.: 13739-002.
    c. Date filed: September 17, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Braddock Locks and Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Braddock
Locks and Dam on the Monongahela River, in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania. The project would not occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark R. Stover, Lock+TM Hydro
Friends Fund XLII, c/o Hydro Green Energy, LLC, 900 Oakmont Lane, Suite
310, Westmont, IL 60559;<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 711; email_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: November 16, 2012.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed project would utilize the existing U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' Braddock Locks and Dam and the Braddock Pool, and would
consist of the following new facilities: (1) A new powerhouse with five
turbine-generators having a total installed capacity of 3,750
kilowatts; (2) a new approximately 3,450-foot-long electric
transmission line; (3) a switchyard and control room; and (4)
appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is estimated to
be 25,020 megawatt-hours.
    The proposed project would deploy hydropower turbines within a
patented ``Large Frame Module'' (LFM) that would be deployed on the
south (river left) side of the dam, opposite the location of the
existing navigational locks and at the upstream face of the existing
left closure weir. The proposed modular, low environmental impact
powerhouse would be approximately 60.4 feet long, 16.6 feet wide, and
40 feet high, and constructed of structural-grade steel. The powerhouse
will bear on a concrete foundation on rock that is anchored to the
existing left closure weir. A trash rack with 6-inch openings would be
placed at the powerhouse intake to increase safety and protect the
turbines from large debris.
    o. A copy of the application 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, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR
800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Notice of Acceptance..............  October 2012.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments...  November 2012.
Comments on Scoping Document 1..........  January 2013.
Issue Scoping Document 2................  February 2013.
Issue notice of ready for environmental   February 2013.
 analysis.
Commission issues EA, draft EA, or draft  August 2013.
 EIS.
Comments on EA or draft EA or draft EIS.  September 2013.
Commission issues final EA or final EIS.  December 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 28, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. 2012-24565 Filed 10-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63679-63680]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0333; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-36; Northcentral United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airway V-36 by establishing an airway segment within United States
(U.S.) airspace over Lake Superior. The new V-36 airway segment
replaces a similar segment that was inadvertently removed in a previous
rulemaking action supporting NAV CANADA's Navigational Aid (NAVAID)
Modernization Program. This action also supports cross border airway
connectivity with NAV CANADA's V-36 airway between the Thunder Bay, ON,
Canada, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) and the Wawa, ON,
Canada, VOR/DME NAVAIDs.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, December 29, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it expands the availability of the VOR Federal airway
route structure in the northcentral United States and improves the
efficient flow of air traffic crossing the U.S./Canada border flying
through U.S. and Canadian airspace.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2022-0333 in the Federal Register (87 FR 19821; April 6, 2022),
amending VOR Federal airway V-36. The proposed amendment replaces an
airway segment that was inadvertently removed in a previous rulemaking
action supporting NAV CANADA's NAVAID Modernization Program. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal
airway listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E

airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying V-36 to establish a
segment of the airway over Lake Superior within U.S. airspace that was
inadvertently removed in a previous rulemaking action. The modification
of V-36 supports cross border connectivity of the airway with NAV
CANADA's V-36 airway between the Thunder Bay VOR/DME and Wawa VOR/DME.
The airway action is described below.
    V-36: V-36 extends between the Wawa, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and the
Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME; and between the Elmira, NY, VOR/DME and
the intersection of the La Guardia, NY, VOR/DME 310[deg] and
Stillwater, NJ, VOR/DME 043[deg] radials (NEION fix). The airspace
within Canada is excluded. An airway segment is established within U.S.
airspace that connects to NAV CANADA's V-36 airway segments between the
Thunder Bay, ON, Canada, VOR/DME and the Wawa, ON, Canada, VOR/DME;
providing cross border connectivity for the airway between the two
NAVAIDs. As a result, V-36 will extend between the Thunder Bay, ON,
Canada, VOR/DME and the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR/DME; and between the
Elmira, NY, VOR/DME and the intersection of the La Guardia, NY, VOR/DME
310[deg] and the Stillwater, NJ, VOR/DME 043[deg] radials (NEION fix).
The airspace within Canada will continue to be excluded.
    The NAVAID radials listed in the V-36 description below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of amending VOR Federal
airway V-36, to establish an airway segment inadvertently removed in a
previous rulemaking action, qualifies for categorical exclusion under
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action
is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-36 [Amended]

    From Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; Wawa, ON, Canada; to Sault Ste
Marie, MI. From Elmira, NY; INT Elmira 110[deg] and LaGuardia, NY,
310[deg] radials; to INT LaGuardia 310[deg] and Stillwater, NJ,
043[deg] radials. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-22185 Filed 10-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36977-36980]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0023; FRL-8935-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky;
Variance of Avis Rent-A-Car and Budget Rent-A-Car Facilities Located at
the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the source-specific State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky on February 4, 2009, for the purpose of removing Stage II
vapor control requirements at Avis Rent-A-Car, and Budget Rent-A-Car
facilities located at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
Airport. This proposed revision to the SIP is approvable based on the
December 12, 2006, EPA policy memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled
Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery in Situations Where Widespread Use
of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery is Demonstrated. This action is
being taken pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0023 by one of the following method:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0023'', Regulatory Development Section;
Air Planning Branch; Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section; Air Planning Branch; Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2009-0023''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http:/
/www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'', which means EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comments.
If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider you comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http: //www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticide and

Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mohammad Madjdinasab, Regulatory
Development Section; Air Planning Branch; Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Madjdinasab can also be reached via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

    I. Background
    II. Analysis of the State's Submittals
    III. Proposed Action
    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990 (See 56 FR 56694, effective
January 6, 1992), EPA designated and classified three Kentucky counties
(Boone, Campbell, and Kenton in the Northern Kentucky Area) and four
Ohio counties (Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren) as a
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area as part of the Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky Area. The designation was based on the Area's 1-hour
ozone design value of 0.157 parts per million (ppm) for the three year
period of 1988-1990. Pursuant to the requirements of section 182(b)(3)
of the CAA, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy and Environment
Cabinet, Division of Air Quality (KDAQ) developed Kentucky
Administrative Regulations (KAR) 401 KAR 59:174 Stage II controls at
gasoline dispensing facilities, and submitted the rule to EPA for
approval as part of Kentucky's ozone SIP. The rule was adopted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky on January 12, 1998, and approved by EPA into
the SIP on December 8, 1998 (63 FR 675896). Under this regulation,
gasoline dispensing facilities with a monthly throughput of 25,000
gallons or more located in a Kentucky county in which the entire county
is classified as severe, serious, or moderate nonattainment for ozone,
are required to install Stage II vapor recovery systems.
    On October 29, 1999, having implemented all measures required of
Kentucky to that date for moderate ozone nonattainment areas under the
CAA, and with three years of data (1996-1998) showing compliance with
the 1-hour ozone standard, KDAQ submitted to EPA an ozone maintenance
plan and request for redesignation of the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
area to attainment status. The maintenance plan, as required under
section 175A of the CAA, showed that nitrogen oxides and volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions in the area would remain below the
1990 ``attainment year'' levels. In making these projections, KDAQ
factored in the emissions benefit (primarily VOCs) of the area's Stage
II program, and did not remove this program as part of its 1-hour ozone
SIP. The redesignation request and maintenance plan were approved by
EPA, effective June 19, 2000 (65 FR 37879). Since the Kentucky Stage II
program was already in place and had been included in the State's
October 29, 1999, redesignation request and 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan for the Area, KDAQ elected not to remove the program from the SIP
at that time.
    On April 6, 1994, EPA promulgated regulations requiring the phase-
in of on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems on new motor
vehicles. Under Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, moderate ozone
nonattainment areas are not required to implement Stage II vapor
recovery programs after promulgation of ORVR standards.

II. Analysis of Kentucky's Submittal

A. Requested Source Specific Exemption of Stage II Requirements

    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
Kentucky's request to exempt Stage II vapor control requirements for
Avis Rent-A-Car and Budget Rent-A-Car facilities located at the
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport is whether this
requested action complies with section 110 (a)(l) of the CAA. Below is
EPA's analysis of these considerations.
1. Federal Requirements for Stage II
    States were required to adopt Stage II rules for all areas
classified as ``moderate'' or worse under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA.
However, section 202(a)(6) of the CAA states that ``the requirements of
section 182(b)(3) (relating to Stage II gasoline vapor recovery) for
areas classified under section 181 as moderate for ozone shall not
apply after promulgation of such standards.'' ORVR regulations were
promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994 (see 59 FR 16262, 40 CFR 86.001 and
40 CFR 86.098). As a result, the CAA no longer requires moderate areas
to impose Stage II controls under section 182(b)(3), and such areas may
seek SIP revisions to remove such requirements from their SIP, subject
to section 110(l) of the Act. EPA's policy memorandum related to ORVR,
dated March 9, 1993, and June 23, 1993, provided further guidance on an
allowance for removing Stage II requirements from certain areas. The
policy memorandum dated March 9, 1993 states ``When onboard rules are
promulgated, a State may withdraw its stage II rules for moderate areas
from the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP revision) consistent with
its obligation under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as
withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable requirement of
the Act.'' Because Kentucky is taking credit for Stage II in its
maintenance plan, this action is subject to section 110(l) of the CAA,
which states:

    Plan Revision--Each revision to an implementation plan submitted
by a State under this chapter shall be adapted by such State after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.

    As such, Kentucky must make a demonstration of noninterference in
order to remove Stage II from the SIP for Avis Rent-A-Car and Budget
Rent-A-Car facilities located at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport.
2. Cincinnati--Hamilton Interstate Area Air Quality Status
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
Area, which consists of Boone, Campbell, and Kenton Counties in
Kentucky (and Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren Counties
in Ohio) as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) (69 FR 23857). The Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky Area remains designated as nonattainment, and has 2005-2007
and 2006-2008 8-hour ozone design values of 0.086 pp and 0.085 ppm,
respectively. On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by revising it to 0.075. Designations for this new 8-hour NAAQS
are scheduled for March 2010.
    On January 5, 2005, EPA published designations for the 1997 annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 standard (70 FR 944). The Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky Area was designated as an attainment area for the
1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard. However,

this same area was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 standard and has remained as a nonattainment area for
that standard. Compliance with the 1997 PM2.5 annual
standard is 15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3). The annual
PM2.5 design value for Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area for
the period of 2005-2007 was 17.3 ug/m3.
    On October 17, 2006 and effective December 18, 2006, EPA published
a rulemaking regarding the NAAQS for the PM2.5 standard.
Specifically, EPA retained the annual PM2.5 standard of 15
ug/m3 and revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard,
changing it from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3. The
revision of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2006, triggered
the designation process for the standard. Based on 2006-2008 monitoring
data, the design value for the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Area is
34.9 ug/m3, which is in compliance with the standard. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a letter dated February 10, 2009,
which requested that the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Area be
classified attainment based on 2006-2008 data. EPA has yet to publish
the final rulemaking with the final designations for the revised 24-
hour PM2.5 standard.
3. Non-Interference Demonstration for Exemption of Stage II
Requirements
    This proposed source-specific revision to the Kentucky SIP is
approvable based on the CAA and the December 12, 2006, EPA memorandum
from Stephen D. Page entitled, Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery in
Situations Where Widespread Use of On-board Refueling Vapor Recovery is
Demonstrated which provides guidance to States concerning the removal
of Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems where States demonstrate to
EPA that widespread use of ORVR has occurred in specific portions of
the motor vehicle fleet. States were required to adopt Stage II rules
for such areas under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA. However, Section
202(a)(6) of the CAA states that ``The requirements of section
182(b)(3) of this title (relating to stage II gasoline vapor recovery)
for areas classified under section 181 of this title as moderate for
ozone shall not apply after promulgation of such standards and the
Administrator may, by rule, revise or waive the application of the
requirements of such section 182(b)(3) of this title for areas
classified under section 181 of this title as serious, severe, or
extreme for ozone * * *.'' Section 202 On-board Refueling Vapor
Recovery regulations were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994, and the
requirements of these regulations are currently being phased in. In
this circumstance, EPA does believe that a determination of
``widespread'' use is necessary to provide for the source specific SIP
revision for Stage II requirements for Avis Rent-A-Car and Budget Rent-
A-Car facilities. EPA's December 12, 2006, memorandum states that if 95
percent of the vehicles in a fleet have ORVR, then widespread use will
likely have been demonstrated for that fleet. The memorandum addresses
the following specific fleets:
     Initial fueling of new vehicles at automobile assembly
plants;
     Refueling of rental cars at rental car facilities;
     Refueling of flexible fuel vehicles at E85 dispensing
pumps.
    Most large rental car companies rent current model vehicles that
are equipped with ORVR and vehicle models are changed to current year
models every year or two. The Commonwealth of Kentucky has confirmed
that 100 percent and not less than 95 percent of vehicles at Avis Rent-
A-Car and Budget Rent-A-Car facilities located at the Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky International Airport are equipped with ORVR.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibits facilities within the
State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other State with respect to any such national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standards. The only pollutant emitted by refueling
vehicles is VOC, which is a precursor of ozone, and its emissions are
mitigated by use of vehicles equipped with ORVR. Kentucky has
adequately demonstrated that ORVR has supplanted Stage II requirements
at Avis Rent-A-Car and Budget Rent-A-Car facilities.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned source-specific SIP
revision request from Kentucky. VOC emissions from vehicles at Avis
Rent-A-Car and Budget Rent-A-Car facilities are controlled by ORVR,
therefore, we conclude that removal of Stage II requirements at these
facilities would not result in an increase of VOC emissions, and thus
would not contribute to ozone formation. The Commonwealth is seeking to
remove this requirement for these rent-a-car facilities and has fully
satisfied the requirements of Section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, we
are proposing to approve this source-specific SIP revision, as it is
consistent with Section 110 of CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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
proposed 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 proposed 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 an Indian country located
in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal laws.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile organic compounds,
Ozone, Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide.

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

    Dated: July 7, 2009.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-17823 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23212-23214]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5595; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Seats California LLC Seating
Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems. This proposed AD
was prompted by a determination that the affected seating systems may
cause serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts when
subjected to certain inertia forces. This proposed AD would require
removing affected seating systems. We are proposing this AD to prevent
serious injury to the occupant during forward impacts in emergency
landing conditions.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 6, 2016.

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.

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-2016-
5595; 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: Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5344; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-5595;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-087-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

    We determined that occupants of certain Zodiac Seats California LLC
seating systems having model numbers 4157, 4170, and 4184, may
experience serious injury during forward impacts when subjected to
inertia forces as defined by 14 CFR 25.561 and 14 CFR 25.562 (and thus
are noncompliant with 14 CFR 25.785). The affected seating systems are
installed on, but not limited to, various transport category airplanes.
    The impact of the head onto a typical transport passenger seat back
during seat qualification testing normally results in an initial
contact followed by an unimpeded sliding motion down the back of the
seat. That type of interaction does not typically result in excessive
neck loading or direct concentrated loading on the neck. The design of
the affected seating systems introduce new injury mechanisms such that
the chin can catch on the seat, causing high neck bending loads and
direct concentrated loading on the neck. This interaction between the
head and the seat during forward impacts can result in serious injury
to the occupant.
    14 CFR 25.785 states that seat designs cannot cause a serious
injury to the occupant when making proper use of the seat and restraint
and subjected to the inertia forces specified in 14 CFR

25.561 and 14 CFR 25.562. Specifically, 14 CFR 25.785(b) states:

    Each seat, berth, safety belt, harness, and adjacent part of the
airplane at each station designated as occupiable during takeoff and
landing must be designed so that a person making proper use of these
facilities will not suffer serious injury in an emergency landing as
a result of the inertia forces specified in sections 25.561 and
25.562.

    Use of the affected seating systems could result in serious injury
to the occupant during forward impacts in emergency landing conditions.

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 these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removing affected seating systems.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 10,482 seating systems
installed on but not limited to various transport category airplanes of
U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal.............................  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85         $890,970
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Zodiac Seats California LLC: Docket No. FAA-2016-5595; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NM-087-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 6, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems,
having model numbers and part numbers identified in table 1 to
paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j) and (k) of this AD, installed on, but
not limited to, the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(9) of this AD, all type certificated models in any
category.
    (1)The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes.
    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes.
    (4) Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes.
    (5) Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-
145XR airplanes.
    (6) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-100 LR airplanes.
    (7) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 170-200 LR, and -200 STD airplanes.
    (8) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW
airplanes.
    (9) Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-200 LR airplanes.

  Table 1 to Paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j) and (k) of This AD--Affected
                             Seating Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Model No.             Part No.              Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4157.....................   4157( )-( )-(  Double Seat Assembly System.
                                        )
4157.....................   4158( )-( )-(  Double Seat Assembly System.
                                        )
4157.....................   4175( )-( )-(  Double Seat Assembly System.
                                        )
4157.....................   4176( )-( )-(  Double Seat Assembly System.
                                        )
4157.....................   4177( )-( )-(  Double Seat Assembly System.
                                        )
4157.....................   4178( )-( )-(  Double Seat Assembly System.
                                        )
4170.....................     4170( )-( )  Triple Seat Assembly System.
4170.....................     4169( )-( )  Double Seat Assembly System.
4170.....................     4171( )-( )  Single Seat Assembly System
                                            Exit Row.
4170.....................     4172( )-( )  Double Seat Assembly System
                                            Exit Row.
4184.....................   4184( )-( )-(  Double Seat Assembly System.
                                        )
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2520, Passenger
Compartment Equipment.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the
affected seating systems may cause serious injury to the occupant
during forward impacts when subjected to certain inertia forces. We
are issuing this AD to prevent serious injury to the occupant during
forward impacts in emergency landing conditions.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Seating System Removal

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, remove all
seating systems having a model number and part number identified in
table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD.

(h) Definition of a Direct Spare

    For the purposes of this AD, a ``direct'' spare has the same
part number as the part it replaces.

(i) Parts Installation Limitations: Seating Systems

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane any Zodiac Seats California LLC seating systems having
any model number and part number identified in table 1 to paragraphs
(c), (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD that are approved under TSO-
C127a; except as specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Seating systems may be removed from service for the purpose
of performing maintenance activities and reinstalled on airplanes
operated by the same operator but only until the operator complies
with the removal of affected seating systems required by paragraph
(g) of this AD.
    (2) New seating systems may be installed as direct spares for
the same part number seating systems but only until the operator
complies with the removal of affected seating systems required by
paragraph (g) of this AD. Seating systems installed as direct spares
are subject to the applicable requirements and compliance times
specified in this AD.

(j) Parts Installation Provisions: Installation and Rearrangement

    Installation of a seating system having any model number and
part number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j),
and (k) of this AD, other than those installed as direct spares, is
considered a new installation that needs approval; except re-
arrangement of the existing installed seating systems on an airplane
is acceptable until the operator complies with the removal of
affected seating systems required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
provided the re-arrangement follows the same installation
instructions and limitations as the original certification (e.g., if
the original limitations allowed 32'' to 34'' pitch, the new layout
must be pitched within that range).

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition: Components of Seating Systems

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane any component of any seating system having any model
number identified in table 1 to paragraphs (c), (g), (i), (j), and
(k) of this AD that is approved under TSO-C127a; except as specified
in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Components of seating systems specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD may be removed from service and re-installed on airplanes
operated by the same operator but only until the operator complies
with the removal of affected seating systems required by paragraph
(g) of this AD.
    (2) New components of seating systems may be installed as direct
spares for the same part number components but only until the
operator complies with the removal of affected seating systems
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (3) Components of seating systems specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD that are installed as direct spares are subject to the
applicable requirements and compliance times specified in paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 (m) 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.

(m) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Patrick Farina,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-150L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 11, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09004 Filed 4-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43809-43813]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1015; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-039-AD;
Amendment 39-16376; AD 2010-15-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. PA-28, PA-32, PA-
34, and PA-44 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 series
airplanes. This AD requires you to inspect the control wheel shaft on
both the pilot and copilot sides and, if necessary, replace the control
wheel shaft. This AD results from two field reports of incorrectly
assembled control wheel shafts. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct any incorrectly assembled control wheel shafts. This condition,
if left uncorrected, could lead to separation of the control wheel
shaft, resulting in loss of pitch and roll control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on August 31, 2010.
    On August 31, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: To get the service information identified in this AD,
contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida
32960; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http:/
/www.newpiper.com/company/publications.asp.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2009-1015;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-039-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hector Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, GA 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On October 23, 2009, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA-28, PA-32, PA-
34, and PA-44 series airplanes. This proposal was published in the
Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on October
30, 2009 (74 FR 56138). The NPRM proposed to detect and correct any
incorrectly assembled control wheel shafts.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and FAA's response to each comment:

Comment Issue No. 1: Difficulty in Disassembling Components

    Fifteen commenters, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), Barry Rogers, Bruce Chien, and Harry Cook commented
that some Piper airplanes do not have inspection holes and may require
disassembly of the control wheel shaft. Disassembly can take several
hours due to the difficulty in removing (or separating) the parts,
which could be very costly and possibly damage a perfectly good
component.
    We infer from these comments that the commenters want us to rescind
the NPRM due to difficulty in disassembling the parts and cost of labor
for disassembly.
    The FAA partially agrees with the above comment. We disagree that
we should rescind the NPRM due to difficulty in disassembling the
parts. According to Piper, the universal joint has rotating parts that
wear, and replacement of those parts, which requires disassembly, is a
routine procedure done with little difficulty. Piper sales history
records show, that on average, they sell over 400 of these as service
spare replacements each year, and the Piper technical support
department is not aware of anyone reporting difficulty in replacing
them. Piper has revised their service bulletin, to provide more
information about the different control wheel shaft configurations. We
agree that disassembly of the control shaft wheel may take more time
than an inspection with witness holes. However, the FAA has determined
that there is an unsafe condition and has identified actions to correct
that unsafe condition. It is every owner's and operator's
responsibility to maintain the airplane to the type design and address
any airworthiness concerns. This includes all maintenance requirements
and ADs that correct an unsafe condition.
    We will change the final rule AD action to include Piper Aircraft,
Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1197B, dated May 3, 2010, to use
for the procedures to comply with the actions required by this AD. We
will allow ``unless already done'' credit to anyone who already
accomplished the actions following the previous service bulletin
included as part of the NPRM.

Comment Issue No. 2: Cost Absorbed by Piper

    John Witosky, Thomas McIntosh, Claude Dalrymple, Jr., M. Hefter,
and George Haffey commented that the cost

for maintenance and replacement parts should be absorbed by Piper.
Several aircraft owners disagreed with covering the cost for a Piper
mistake. Several aircraft owners/operators felt that Piper failed to
manufacture the aircraft to design specification and their quality
system did not detect a bad assembly.
    The FAA has determined that there is an unsafe condition and has
identified actions to correct that unsafe condition. One of the FAA's
responsibilities is to identify the direct costs involved (labor and
parts) with the corrective actions. It is every owner's and operator's
responsibility to maintain the airplane to the type design and address
any airworthiness concerns. This includes all maintenance requirements
and ADs that correct an unsafe condition.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 3: Date Range of Manufacturing Error

    M. Hefter, Barry Rogers, Matt Gunsch, Thomas McIntosh, and four
other commenters stated that the FAA needs to determine a date range
when the control wheel assemblies' manufacturing errors were most
likely to have occurred. This would narrow the number of aircraft
required to be inspected. This AD would require the inspection of the
control wheel assemblies on approximately 41,928 airplanes. There are
reports from Piper owners that the inspection is not simple and can
take several hours due to difficulty in removing (or separating) the
parts.
    The FAA agrees that it would be helpful to know an exact time
period when the manufacturing errors occurred. Piper is unable to
determine a time period when the assembly error occurred. Therefore, we
are unable to comply with owner's/operator's requests to narrow the
number of aircraft based on date of manufacture.
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 4: Various Configurations and Cost of Compliance

    The AOPA, Bruce Chien, M. Hefter, and Barry Rogers commented that
the cost of compliance should be revised based on field experience and
difficulty in removing these parts for inspection, along with replacing
these assemblies and different configurations used in the control wheel
shaft assemblies. Piper owners claim there are different configurations
used in the control wheel shaft assemblies as follows:
     Taper pin on aircraft with witness holes;
     Taper pin on aircraft without witness holes;
     Bolt with witness hole;
     Bolt with no witness hole; and
     The older Piper aircraft do not use fastener (taper pin or
bolt) or have witness holes.
    The FAA agrees with this comment. Piper has revised the service
information to provide more information about the different control
wheel shaft configurations. We are including this revised service
bulletin in the final rule AD action, and including the estimated cost
of each configuration in the Costs of Compliance section of this AD. We
will allow ``unless already done'' credit to anyone who already
accomplished the actions following the previous service bulletin
included as part of the NPRM.

Comment Issue No. 5: Inadequate Service Information

    The AOPA and Harry Cook commented that there should be a revision
to the service bulletin to address the different control wheel shaft
assemblies. Piper owners are requesting more instructions in the
service bulletin to address the older Piper aircraft that do not use
taper pins or have witness holes.
    The FAA agrees with this comment. Piper has revised the service
bulletin to provide more information about the different control wheel
shaft configurations. We will change the final rule AD action to
include Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1197B,
dated May 3, 2010, to use for the procedures to comply with the actions
required by this AD. We will allow ``unless already done'' credit to
anyone who already accomplished the actions following the previous
service bulletin included as part of the NPRM.

Comment Issue No. 6: Alternative Methods of Inspecting

    Neal Bachman, M. Hefter, and several other commenters had several
suggestions for control wheel shafts lacking a witness hole. One
commenter suggested that information should be provided in the service
bulletin on drilling a witness hole based on Piper design
specifications. Another commenter suggested revising the service
bulletin to include an alternative method to determine the location of
the drilled taper pin hole, which requires a measurement from the
sprocket end of the shaft instead of measuring from the universal joint
end of the shaft (which requires the removal of the tapered pin). The
commenters feel this will greatly reduce the burden to remove the
universal joint/taper pin on airplanes lacking a witness hole.
    The FAA disagrees with this comment. Based on input from Piper, we
determined these were not viable options due to the many different
control wheel shaft configurations within each airplane model. However,
anyone may submit substantiating data to show compliance with the
actions of this AD. The FAA will review and consider all alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) requests we receive provided they follow
the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19
    We are not changing the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Comment Issue No. 7: Compliance Times

    The AOPA and M. Hefter commented that the compliance time should be
changed to be at the next scheduled annual or 100-hour inspection,
whichever occurs first. The low fleet incidences do not justify a more
restrictive timetable.
    The FAA agrees and based on comments received from owners/operators
we will change the compliance time to be within the next 100 hours
time-in-service or within the next 12 months, whichever occurs first.

Comment Issue No. 8: Unnecessary AD Action

    The AOPA, James M. Stockdale, Steven Barnes, and others commented
that the proposed AD is a result of two reports of control wheel shafts
incorrectly drilled at Piper. The AD would require the inspection of
the control wheel assemblies on approximately 41,928 airplanes. Several
aircraft owners/operators feel that a control wheel shaft problem would
have shown a much greater incidence level than two field reports.
    The FAA does not agree that the scope needs to be changed or that
this NPRM is not necessary. A loss of the control wheel due to
misdrilling of the attachment hole may lead to separation of the
control wheel shaft, resulting in loss of pitch and roll control. The
FAA has determined that there is an unsafe condition as described and
justified in the NPRM. It is every owner's responsibility to maintain
their airplane to type design and address any airworthiness concern.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for the changes previously discussed and minor editorial
corrections. We have

determined that these minor corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect 41,928 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the inspection:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                           Parts cost              Total cost per airplane              Total cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From .5 work-hour to 3 work-hours x $85   Not applicable................  From $42.50 to $255.......  From $1,781,940 to $10,691,640.
 per hour = $42.50 to $255.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this
repair/replacement:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost per
                   Labor cost                                       Parts cost                       airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taper Pin with and without witness hole: 16      $75 per side x maximum of 2 per airplane = $150          $1,510
 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,360.
Bolt with and without witness hole: 15 work-     $75 per side x maximum of 2 per airplane = $150          $1,425
 hours x $85 per hour = $1,275.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 AD.

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2009-1015; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-039-AD'' in your
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding a new AD to read as follows:

2010-15-10 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-16376; Docket No. FAA-
2009-1015; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-039-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on August 31, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial
numbers that are certificated in any category:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Models                                                                     Serial Nos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA-28-140.......................................  28-20001 through 28-26946 and 28-7125001 through
                                                  28-7725290.
PA-28-150.......................................  28-03; 28-1 through 28-4377; and 28-1760A.
PA-28-160.......................................  28-03; 28-1 through 28-4377; and 28-1760A.
PA-28-180.......................................  28-03; 28-671 through 28-5859; and 28-7105001 through 28-7205318.
PA-28S-160......................................  28-1 through 28-1760 and 28-1760A.
PA-28S-180......................................  28-671 through 28-5859 and 28-7105001 through
                                                  28-7105234.
PA-28-235.......................................  28-10001 through 28-11378; 28-7110001 through
                                                  28-7210023; 28E-11 and 28-7310001 through 28-7710089.

PA-28-236.......................................  28-7911001 through 28-8611008 and 2811001 through 2811050.
PA-28-151.......................................  28-7415001 through 28-7715314.
PA-28-161.......................................  2841001 through 2841365; 28-7716001 through
                                                  28-8216300; 28-8316001 through 28-8616057; 2816001 through 2816109; 2816110 through 2816119; and
                                                   2842001 through 2842305.
PA-28-180.......................................  28-E13 and 28-7305001 through 28-7505260.
PA-28-181.......................................  28-7690001 through 28-8690056; 28-8690061;
                                                  28-8690062; 2890001 through 2890205; 2890206 through 2890231; and 2843001 through 2843672.
PA-28-201T......................................  28-7921001 through 28-7921095.
PA-28R-180......................................  28R-30002 through 28R-31270 and 28R-7130001 through 28R-7130013.
PA-28R-200......................................  28R-35001 through 28R-35820; 28R-7135001 through 28R-7135229; and 28R-7235001 through 28R-7635545.
PA-28R-201......................................  28R-7737002 through 28R-7837317; 2837001 through 2837061; and 2844001 through 2844138.
PA-28R-201T.....................................  28R-7703001 through 28R-7803374 and 2803001 through 2803012.
PA-28RT-201.....................................  28R-7918001 through 28R-7918267 and 28R-8018001 through 28R-8218026.
PA-28RT-201T....................................  28R-7931001 through 28R-8631005 and 2831001 through 2831038.
PA-32-260.......................................  32-03; 32-04; 32-1 through 32-1297; and 32-7100001 through 32-7800008.
PA-32-300.......................................  32-15; 32-21; 32-40000 through 32-40974; and
                                                  32-7140001 through 32-7940290.
PA-32S-300......................................  32S-15; 32S-40000 through 32S-40974; and 32S-7140001 through 32S-7240137.
PA-32R-300......................................  32R-7680001 through 32R-7880068.
PA-32RT-300.....................................  32R-7885002 through 32R-7985106.
PA-32RT-300T....................................  32R-7787001 and 32R-7887002 through 32R-7987126.
PA-32R-301 (SP).................................  32R-8013001 through 32R-8613006; 3213001 through
                                                  3213028; and 3213030 through 3213041.
PA-32R-301 (HP).................................  3213029; 3213042 through 3213103; 3246001 through 3246217; 3246219; 3246223; 3246218; 3246220 through
                                                   3246222; and 3246224 through 3246244.
PA-32R-301T.....................................  32R-8029001 through 32R-8629008 and 3229001 through 3229003.
PA-32-301.......................................  32-8006002 through 32-8606023; 3206001 through 3206019; 3206042 through 3206044; 3206047; 3206050
                                                   through 3206055; and 3206060.
PA-32-301T......................................  32-8024001 through 32-8424002.
PA-32R-301T.....................................  3257001 through 3257483.
PA-32-301FT.....................................  3232001 through 3232074.
PA-32-301XTC....................................  3255001 through 3255014; 3255026, 3255015 through 3255025; 3255027; and 3255051.
PA-34-200.......................................  34-E4 and 34-7250001 through 34-7450220.
PA-34-200T......................................  34-7570001 through 34-8170092.
PA-34-220T......................................  34-8133001 through 34-8633031; 3433001 through 3433172; 3448001 through 3448037; 3448038 through
                                                   3448079; 3447001 through 3447029; and 3449001 through 3449377.
PA-44-180.......................................  44-7995001 through 44-8195026; 4495001 through 4495013; and 4496001 through 4496251.
PA-44-180T......................................  44-8107001 through 44-8207020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from two field reports of incorrectly
assembled control wheel shafts. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct any incorrectly assembled control wheel shafts. This
condition, if left uncorrected, could lead to separation of the
control wheel shaft, resulting in loss of pitch and roll control.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Inspect the pilot and copilot     Within 100 hours time-in-service      Follow Piper Aircraft, Inc.
 control wheel columns for correct     after August 31, 2010 (the            Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
 control wheel shaft installation.     effective date of this AD), or        1197A, dated September 1, 2009; or
                                       within the next 12 months after       Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory
                                       August 31, 2010 (the effective date   Service Bulletin No. 1197B, dated
                                       of this AD), whichever occurs first.  May 3, 2010.
(2) If during the inspection          Before further flight after the       Follow Piper Aircraft, Inc.
 required in paragraph (e)(1) of       inspection where incorrect            Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
 this AD an incorrectly installed      installation of the control wheel     1197A, dated September 1, 2009; or
 control wheel shaft is found,         shaft is found.                       Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory
 replace the appropriate shaft with                                          Service Bulletin No. 1197B, dated
 a new shaft.                                                                May 3, 2010.

(3) Inspect the universal joint and   Before further flight after the       Follow Piper Aircraft, Inc.
 all other control wheel parts when    inspection where incorrect            Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
 doing the action required in (e)(2)   installation of the control wheel     1197A, dated September 1, 2009; or
 of this AD and, if any                shaft is found.                       Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory
 deterioration, excessive wear, or                                           Service Bulletin No. 1197B, dated
 damage is found, replace the                                                May 3, 2010.
 universal joint and/or other
 control wheel parts with a new
 universal joint and/or other
 applicable new control wheel parts
 as necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Hector Hernandez, Aerospace Engineer, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA
30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Related Information

    (g) To get copies of the service information referenced in this
AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: http://www.newpiper.com/company/publications.asp. To view
the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Piper Aircraft, Inc. Mandatory Service Bulletin
No. 1197A, dated September 1, 2009, or Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 1197B, dated May 3, 2010, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://
www.newpiper.com/company/publications.asp.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 16, 2010.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-18012 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 26222]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10141]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3472-022]

Summit Hydropower, Inc.; Aspinook Hydro, LLC; Notice of
Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Protests

    On April 12, 2016, Summit Hydropower, Inc. (transferor) and
Aspinook Hydro, LLC (transferee) filed an application for transfer of
license of the Wyre Wynd Project No. 3472. The project is located on
the Quinebaug River in New London County, Connecticut. The project does
not occupy Federal lands.
    The applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for
the Wyre Wynd Project from the transferor to the transferee.
    Applicant Contact: For transferor: Mr. Duncan Broatch, Summit
Hydropower, Inc., 6 Far Hills Drive, Avon, CT 06001, telephone: 860-
255-7744, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Ms. Katie McGinnes, Day
Pitney LLP, 242 Trumbull Street, Hartford, CT 06103-1212. For
transferee: Mr. Mark Boumansour, Aspinook Hydro, LLC, c/o Gravity
Renewables, Inc., 1401 Walnut Street, Suite 220, Boulder, CO 80302,
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and copies
to: Mr. Karl F. Kumli, III, Dietze and Davis, P.C., 2060 Broadway,
Suite 400, Boulder, CO 80302 and Mr. Robert A. Panasci, Esq., Young/
Sommer, LLC Executive Woods, 5 Palisades Drive, Albany, NY 12205.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
30 days from the date that the Commission issues this notice. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments,
motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling
system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-3472-022.

    Dated: April 21, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10141 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Air Screening Level ( µ g/ m3 ) = THQ x RfDi x BW x AT x 1000 EF x ED x air IR Note: RfDi ( mg/ kg day) = RfC x 20m3/ d ( IR) 70 kg ( BW)

Where: THQ = Target Hazard Quotient, assumed to be 1 RfDi = The RfC expressed in terms of dose, mg/ kg day RfC = The inhalation reference concentration ( mg/ m3 ) BW = Body weight, assumed to be 70 kg for adults AT = Averaging time, 10,950 days, the exposure duration expressed in days EF = Exposure Frequency, 350 days/ year, the average number of days each year people are exposed ED = Exposure duration, 30 years, the average number of years people are exposed IR = Inhalation rate for air screening levels, 20 m3 / day Using this equation, the air screening level ranges from 0.3 µ g/ m3 to 10 µ g/ m3 . Using a reasonable median value, the air screening level would be 1.1 µ g/ m3 ( or rounded to 1 µ g/ m3 ).

2.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The key studies, critical effects and levels, uncertainty factors, and provisional risk factors developed by the CATT toxicologists are summarized in Table 12.

42 Table 12. Summary of RfD and RfC Values for C8 Determined by the CATT Toxicologists Reference Critical Effect Critical Effect Levela UFA UFH UFL UFS UFD Composite UFb RfD/ RfC Oral Studies Palazzolo et al. ( 1993) c 90 day rat study Increased relative liver weight with histopathology in male rats 0.47 ( NOAEL in males)

0.72 ( BMDL) 10 10 1 1 1 100 0.005 0.007 York et al. ( 2002)

Two Generation rat study Increased liver weight in male rats, supported by histopathology at higher doses ( histopathology was not examined at the lowest dose,

but incidence of hypertrophy was 100% at next highest dose). 0.42 ( BMDL in males) d 10 10 1 1 1 100 0.004 RikerLaboratories ( 1983)

Two year rat study Hepatic megalocytosis in male rats. 0.73 ( BMDL in males) 10 10 1 1 1 100 0.007 Thomford et al.

( 2001) e 26 week cynomolgus monkey study Decreased thyroid hormone levels in male cynomolgus monkeys, and supported by a NOAEL at the same dose for clinical signs of toxicity in the co critical rhesus monkey study ( Goldenthal et al.,

1978b) 3  10 ( LOAEL in males) 10 10 3 3 1 1000 0.003

0.01 43 Inhalation Studies Kennedy et al. ( 1986) f Two week rat study Increased liver weight supported by histopathology and clinical chemistry in male rats 0.61( NOAEL  HECER males)

0.33 ( BMCL,

BMC 0.78 absolute liver weight)

0.94( BMCL,

BMC 1.3 relative liver weight) 3 10 1 3 3 300 1 Dermal Studies Kennedy et al. ( 1985) f Two week rat study Increased liver weight in male rats 4.2g ( LOAEL in males) Data Inadequate a. Oral and Dermal effect levels and RfDs are presented in units of mg/ kg day, while the inhalation critical effect level and RfC is presented in units of mg/ m3 b. Areas of uncertainty addressed by uncertainty factors are: animal to human extrapolation ( A); intrahuman variability and protection of sensitive subpopulations ( H); extrapolation from a LOAEL to a NOAEL( L); extrapolation from a subchronic to chronic exposure ( S); and lack of a complete database ( D)

c. The subchronic study by Goldenthal et al. ( 1978a) could serve as a supporting study for liver effects in rats.

d. BMDL is the 95% lower confidence limit on the dose corresponding to a response level of 10% or an increase of 1SD in the continuous endpoint being assessed. Only modeling results that provided the lowest value and provided an adequate fit to the data are provided.

e. The subchronic study in rhesus monkeys by Goldenthal et al. ( 1978b) is a co critical study for clinical signs of toxicity in monkeys.

f. These studies are not adequate for derivation of an IRIS quality RfD/ RfC of even low confidence. The values shown could be used to derive a provisional value. Derivation of the RfC or RfD via route to route extrapolation is not supported by the available toxicokinetic data. Consensus on the values for UFS and UFD was not reached by the panel; however, a majority vote was obtained for a value of 3 for both these UFs in reference to liver as the target organ. See text of this report for ranges of UFs and SLs based on the range distribution of the votes for UFs.

g. 4.2 mg/ kg day reflects the study dose of 20 mg/ kg adjusted for discontinuous exposure.

44 I agree that the notes as presented accurately reflect the panel's discussion and conclusions during the May 6 7, 2002 C8 Assessment of Toxicity Toxicologists Panel Meeting, and that the post meeting actions taken to develop the pRfC and Air Screening Level are in accordance with the instructions provided to TERA by the panel. ( Original signatures are on file at DEP.)

_______________________________________ _____________________ John Cicmanec, D. V. M., M. S., ACLAM, USEPA ORD Date _______________________________________ _____________________ Joan Dollarhide, M. S., M. T. S. C., J. D., TERA Date _______________________________________ _____________________ Michael Dourson, Ph. D., D. A. B. T., TERA Date _______________________________________ _____________________ Gerald Kennedy, DuPont Date _______________________________________ _____________________ Andrew Maier, Ph. D., C. I. H., TERA Date _______________________________________ _____________________ Samuel Rotenberg, Ph. D., USEPA Region 3 Date _______________________________________ _____________________ Jennifer Seed, Ph. D., USEPA Headquarters OPPT Date _______________________________________ _____________________ Dee Ann Staats, Ph. D., DEP ( Chairperson) Date _______________________________________ _____________________ John Wheeler, Ph. D., D. A. B. T., ATSDR Date _______________________________________ _____________________ John Whysner, M. D., Ph. D., D. A. B. T. Date 45 46 3. 0 COMPARISON OF SCREENING LEVELS TO SITE RELATED DATA After the SLs for air, water, and soil were determined, DEP compared these SLs to the site related data that has been collected to date. These comparisons are summarized below. The work of the CATT was only one facet of an investigation that continues beyond the issuance of this report. The GIST is expected to issue a report of the groundwater and surface water data in early 2003. The air modeling effort continues and is currently focusing on determining the results of the air emissions reduction efforts by DuPont required in the consent order as a 50% reduction in overall emissions ( both air and water) by the end of 2003. Upgrades were completed in June 2002 which included the installation of a new scrubber and increased height of the primary C8 emissions stack.

Water To date, of the 188 samples collected from private wells, cisterns, and springs, 50 were used for drinking water and none exceeded the150 ppb health protective water SL for C8. Also to date, nine public water supply facilities in West Virginia have been analyzed for C8, including Belleville Locks and Dam, Blennerhassett Island, General Electric, Lubeck Public Service District ( PSD), Mason County PSD, Parkersburg PSD, Racine Locks and Dam, New Haven Water Department, and Ravenswood. None of the drinking water from these facilities contained concentrations of C8 that exceeded the 150 ppb water SL. In fact, the concentrations of C8 in public water supplies were all below 2 ppb, below 15 ppb in private non drinking water, and below 3 ppb in private drinking water wells in West Virginia. Samples were collected from Ohio public and private water supplies. Although C8 levels in some Ohio private water supplies were higher than those detected in West Virginia, none of these samples contained C8 concentrations above the water SL. These data have been provided to Ohio EPA and DEP will continue to share information with throughout the remainder of this investigation. The DEP notes that the water SL is higher than DuPont's internal community exposure guidelines for drinking water of 1 or 3 ppb; however, these guidelines were developed in the early 1990s and based solely on a two week inhalation study from 1986. Since then significant additional toxicological data have been collected and the CATT water SL is based on a comprehensive examination of all available information. Sampling of the Ohio River has begun; preliminary analytical results are expected from the laboratory in September 2002. To date, no analysis has been performed to measure C8 in soils in West Virginia on private property; therefore, no comparison can be made to the soil SL.

Air Mathematical computer models that incorporate weather conditions, chemical characteristics, and facility measurements were utilized by DEP to simulate the ambient air concentrations of C8. Based on actual emissions data from the DuPont WW facility for the year 2000, the DEP modeling efforts predicted a maximum C8 concentration in air of approximately 2.7 µ g/ m3 at the facility fence line along the Ohio River. The maximum modeled C8 air concentration in the West Virginia residential area adjacent to the facility was approximately 0.2 µ g/ m3 annual average. Predicted C8 air concentrations across the Ohio River from the WW facility in Ohio residential areas were greater than those predicted in residential areas in West Virginia. These data have been provided to Ohio EPA and DEP will continue to share information with Ohio EPA throughout the remainder of this investigation. Results of similar subsequent air modeling efforts conducted by DuPont are consistent with those of the DEP. Air modeling information can be obtained from the DEP Division of Air Quality.

The DEP's Divisions of Water Resources and Air Quality are currently reviewing all relevant air and water data to determine DuPont's compliance with the November 2001 consent order between DEP and DuPont.