 1 Regulatory Impact Analysis Protecting Stratospheric Ozone: Process for Exempting Critical Uses from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide ( SAN 4535)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Global Programs Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ( 6205J) Washington, D. C. 20460 Docket Number A 2000 24  2 Regulatory Impact Analysis Framework for the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption ( CUE)

Introduction Attached is the economic impact analysis ( EIA) prepared for EPA on the proposed rulemaking that would create the critical use exemption ( CUE) and describe the framework for how the exemption program would operate.

In the proposed rule EPA seeks to balance several different goals. These goals include designing a system that is simple and minimizes the administrative burden of the regulation,

ensures transparent compliance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ( Protocol) and, promotes the most economic efficient distribution of methyl bromide while still maintaining fairness to those who applied for a critical use exemption. EPA believes that we have achieved a successful balance of simplicity, transparency, fairness, and efficiency in the proposal.

Background EPA outlined three basic implementation options for the exemption program which were then analyzed in the EIA. EPA held six stakeholder workshops over the summer of 2003 to explain the various options being developed and to solicit input from stakeholders on these options. The three basic options are as follows:

Option 1: An upstream cap and trade allowance system which would give critical use allowances to producers and importers of methyl bromide. This allowance system would enable allowance holders to trade their allowances with one  3 another. Allowances may be expended in order to produce or import critical use methyl bromide.

Option 2: An upstream cap and trade system with a downstream permit trading system. This system would additionally distribute permits to end users of methyl bromide and allow those permit holders to trade permits with one another. The holder of a permit could exchange his/ her permit to buy 1 kg of methyl bromide.

Option 3: An upstream cap and trade system with a downstream permit trading system where the permits are initially obtained through an auction.

EPA received extensive feedback from the regulated community regarding the viability of each of these options. As a result of feedback, EPA realized that an auction would be an impractical solution in this user community. As a result, the EIA provides a more in depth analysis of the first two options than it does of the last.

Major Findings in the EIA The EIA seeks to describe the impact of the proposed regulations which amend the existing phaseout requirements for methyl bromide production and consumption ( consumption is defined as production plus imports minus exports). The existing regulations call for a complete elimination of methyl bromide production and import as of January 1, 2005, except for quarantine and preshipment ( QPS) applications. Therefore, it is important to note that any change in the existing regulations that allow for continued production and import of methyl bromide is deregulatory in nature and confers an economic compliance benefit to industry.  4 The estimated negative costs ( i. e. reduced costs resulting from the de regulatory creation of the exemption) for industry are approximately $ 19 million to $ 31 million on an annual basis and $ 380 million to $ 600 million on a Net Present Value basis depending on the particular option and discount value analyzed ( EIA, p. 126). These reduced costs are quite dramatic owing to the high value of methyl bromide for crop production and agriculture related activities.

The approach used in the EIA to derive the negative costs, or cost savings, associated with the proposed action are as follows. First, the EIA examines the original cost projections provided with the current regulations which were developed in 2000. These original projections were developed using the phaseout model, an engineering type approach ( bottom up analysis) that drew data from the literature on the costs of alternatives to methyl bromide and the comparative yields obtained. The EIA, updated the phaseout model with more recent data from newly published studies and from the critical use exemption applications. Then using the updated data points, the EIA looked at what the costs may be under the proposed exemption. The negative cost results are given in the paragraph above and in the table below.

Table I: Annualized and Net Present Value of Private Sector Compliance Costs Discount Rate Annualized Costs Net Present Value Costs Sector Specific Approach Illustrative Universal Approach Sector Specific Approach Illustrative Universal Approach 3% $ 19.5 million $ 21.9 million $ 616.6 million $ 695.6 million 7% $ 26.8 million $ 31.3 million $ 382.7 million $ 446.8 million The de regulatory benefit to industry varies depending on the discount rate used and the approach selected. There are two factors which affect the costs of compliance; they are the size of the cap ( i. e. the amount of critical use methyl bromide exempted) and how the cap is  5 constrained ( i. e. if there is one " universal" amount of methyl bromide made available to all approved critical users or if there is a sub cap for each sector/ commodity group). Both of these variables are likely to be determined by a consensus decision taken by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol when they authorize the critical use exemptions.

In the absence of perfect knowledge, some basic assumptions are used in the EIA. The EIA assumes that the amount of critical use methyl bromide made available is 39% of U. S.

baseline consumption in 2005, 37% in 2006 through 2010, and then decreases 5% per year until it reaches zero in 2018. EPA used these numbers purely for analytical purposes and does not presuppose the outcome of any decisions to be taken by the Parties to the Protocol who are the final arbiters on the amount of material to be exempt in a given year. In addition, we assume that all material produced in a given year is used in that same year ( no stockpiles) and that no new acreage comes into production ( no growth).

The nature of the cap is a question of keen interest to regulated entities and to policy analysts. Regulated entities spent considerable time and money to prepare applications that they submitted to EPA. These entities would like some assurance that at least a minimum amount of methyl bromide will be guaranteed to their sector and thus, they favor a sector specific approach despite the fact the total compliance costs ( the de regulatory benefits) for the industry overall would be lower under a universal approach. Policy analysts may tend to prefer a universal approach because more cost savings are achieved by allowing methyl bromide to go to the user with the highest value use across sectors.

The phaseout model relies on an engineering approach and is not an economic model well  6 suited to predict the distribution of methyl bromide under a universal approach. Therefore, EPA assumed that under a universal approach, 80% of the total available amount of methyl bromide would go to the two largest groups of end users, tomatoes and strawberries. Eighty percent was used to reflect the total amount of material originally requested by these applicants, an amount which these applicants still maintain is truly critically needed. At a 7% discount rate, the total compliance costs savings are $ 27 million under a sector specific approach and $ 31 million under the illustrative universal approach, which means that end users save an additional $ 4 million annually under the universal approach.

A paper written by Kim et al., attached to the EIA as appendix C, looks at the cost of compliance when comparing tradeable permits among end users to non tradeable permits ( command and control). According to Kim, the costs of compliance under command and control are between $ 55 million and $ 177 million depending on how the initial allocation is made. If trading is allowed, compliance costs could be reduced to as low as $ 55 million to $ 35 million depending on the type of cap in place ( i. e. universal or sector specific). It is important to note that EPA is not considering a command and control approach under any of the frameworks analyzed in the EIA.

The EIA addresses the question of whether or not a framework option that would create either an upstream cap and trade system ( option 1) or a downstream tradeable permit system ( option 2) is more economically efficient. The EIA concluded that in fact the framework has little impact on the efficiency of compliance costs per se and that such costs are impacted more by the size of the cap and constraints on the cap as identified in the preceding paragraphs. Under both options, methyl bromide is ultimately purchased by the user of methyl bromide with the highest  7 willingness to pay. The main driver of efficiency is whether or not methyl bromide goes to the highest value use within a commodity sector or if it goes to the use with the highest value across sectors. According to chapter 5 of the EIA, however, there are some factors that could affect whether or not the options produce the same result in terms of consumption of methyl bromide by end users and in control costs, namely how smoothly the market functions under either option.

If one option leads to a market that is sticky, the end result will be a less than optimal distribution of methyl bromide and thus higher control costs for industry overall. Some factors that may lead to sticky markets under option one are the existence of preferential historic relationships between suppliers of methyl bromide and well organized end users. This preferential relationship may lead to methyl bromide being sold to a user who is not necessarily the user willing to pay the most. These preferential historic relationships have been maintained since 1999 when the existing regulations began reduction steps in the production and consumption of methyl bromide. Under option two, in order to achieve a smooth market, permit prices must be known by buyers and sellers, transaction costs must be low, prices adjust to clear the market, and buyers and sellers take full advantage of opportunities to reduce compliance costs by trading ( Ellerman 2000, as cited in EIA). Clearly, complications with these market characteristics may arise under option two. For example, many of the end users are smaller entities or entities who do not necessarily have full time environmental compliance managers. Therefore, they may be unable to spend the necessary time and effort to fully research factors such as permit prices and who has permits available. The size of transaction costs is not well understood and the higher the transaction costs the lower the expected participation from end users, particularly small businesses. In addition, the lack of predictability from year to year under the exemption is another  8 factor that may cause market stickiness as the number of permits available and the price of permits will change on an annual basis. Finally, to the extent that methyl bromide costs are perceived as small relative to other production inputs, some users may not find it necessary to spend the resources needed to research the information required to make profit maximizing decisions regarding the use of methyl bromide relative to substitutes.

Under option 1, critical use methyl bromide may be universally available or available based on end use. In other words, if the U. S. receives an authorization for 9,000 metric tonnes ( mt) to distribute universally, a tomato farmer may purchase an amount of methyl bromide and draw down the 9,000 mt supply. However, if the Parties authorize 9,000 mt for the U. S. but only allow 1,000 mt to be used on tomato production, then the farmers purchase their methyl bromide, they could draw down only the 1,000 mt supply. The tomato farmer's decision to buy methyl bromide does not impact the remaining supply for other users such as the strawberry farmer next door under a sector specific scenario, hence the perception that such a system is more fair to the end user groups who applied to EPA for an exemption.

Under option 2, the supply would function in an identical fashion. However, since users are given permits and since a permit would be required in order to buy methyl bromide, end users are actually given an item of intrinsic value. This way, the end user who doesn't use methyl bromide is actually compensated because she can sell her permit to another entity that may need the methyl bromide more. This transfer allows end users to capture some surplus value that theoretically could be used to finance the transition to alternatives and would render moot concerns about universal vs. sector specific approaches. It is difficult to calculate the potential magnitude of these transfers, however, without having a basis to estimate the future price of a  9 permit.

While option 2 is better than option one in compensating end users who give up their " rights" to methyl bromide, the drawback to option 2 is the additional complexity in both administering the system and in complying with the system. The EIA estimates that the administrative burden for the regulated community and EPA under options 1 and 2 as follows:

Table 2: Administrative Burden of Options 1 and 2 EPA Burden Industry Burden Option One $ 25 k ( annual) $ 15 k ( one time) $ 2,200 k( annual) $ 86 k ( one time)

Option Two $ 2,100 k ( annual) $ 53 k ( one time) $ 6,400 k ( annual) $ 2,000 k ( one time)

source: EIA pages 102 and 117 The burden estimated in the EIA for option one is $ 25,000 annually for EPA and $ 2.1 million annually for industry. The burden for option two is substantially higher at $ 2.2 million annually for EPA and $ 6.4 million for industry.

EPA estimates that there are more than 2,000 end users of methyl bromide who have applied for an exemption. Most of the exemption requests were provided to EPA by groups of like users. In fact, no one knows exactly how many users of methyl bromide there are in the U. S.

today, nor which exact entities actually applied; we only know the conditions for which an exemption was nominated and may be granted and used. In 2000, EPA met with representatives from industry about the CUE application and indicted a preference for farm level data. Other pesticide exemption programs run by EPA, notably the Section 18 emergency exemption program, only require sector or commodity level data. After extensive industry consultation, EPA ultimately decided to only require aggregate data due to the burden involved. Thus, EPA does not  10 have the basic information available to make individual entity level disbursements of permits. To collect and analyze such data for the number of entities involved would place a significant new burden on the regulated community.

The extra burden of option two compared to option one is significant for the government as well. Under option two, the government would be directly regulating thousands more entities than under option one. The EPA would require additional data submissions from each of those entities and, once received, would begin the highly resource intensive, and undoubtedly controversial process of analyzing and determining a baseline for each entity. It would likely take two years to establish the baselines and resolve any appeals that would arise which would mean that end users would not have permits available to them in the first one to two years of the exemption program even if this were the proposed option. If the U. S. were to receive all of the exempted material requested under this exemption, EPA would distribute almost 10 million permits. To manage this many permits and to facilitate easy trading of these permits among end users, EPA would undoubtedly need to create a customized electronic permit tracking system,

similar to the one used in the acid rain trading program. A system of this complexity would conservatively cost EPA approximately $ 500,000 and would require a dedicated FTE to manage.

In contrast, the entire ozone protection program has one person that manages the reporting of all the chemicals we regulate, not one person for each exemption for each chemical.

The Proposed Option After considering the above analysis, EPA developed a proposal that is a hybrid approach.

This option maintains administrative simplicity but also allows for end users to capture some portion of the transfers.  11 EPA proposes in the accompanying rulemaking, to create a framework using option one as the basis for distributing allowances and creating reporting requirements. It is essentially an upstream system. However, it allows end users to reserve quantities of CUE methyl bromide and to sell their reservations to another approved critical user. This secondary market would allow end users to capture some of the surplus if they believed the revenues they could receive from selling their methyl bromide rights and producing their crop with an alternative exceeds the value of retaining the methyl bromide for production of their crop.

Permits are used in environmental policy making to simulate a market. For example,

permits are used in the acid rain program in order to create a value for a non tangible waste product, sulfur dioxide. In the case of methyl bromide, however, there is already a well functioning market, making a permit system redundant so long as the regulation clearly articulates how end users could legally conduct such transactions. In relying on the market instead of on permits, the administrative burden for industry and EPA is substantially reduced because the most resource intensive activity for both the Agency and the end users, baseline determination, is eliminated.

EPA also ensures transparent compliance with Protocol obligations by proposing an upstream system. Since there are few regulated entities, it is easy to track on a quarterly basis whether or not the U. S. is under the Montreal Protocol cap. These entities are currently regulated by EPA in the same manner under the phaseout. They find this system straightforward with minimal burden.

EPA proposes to allow end users to make reservations for methyl bromide using an electronic reservation system ( ERS). The ERS allows users to obtain and sell rights to critical use  12 material and allows EPA to track the use of critical use methyl bromide on a quarterly basis.

The ERS is a simplified version of the permit tracking system that tracks the volume of exempted material available in the marketplace on a quarterly basis. The ERS is able to track amounts of methyl bromide used in a given commodity or end use and provides transparent information to end users about the amount of exempted material available for use in their sector.

At the beginning of the year, EPA will populate the ERS with the total amount of exempted methyl bromide available for each sector. Then end users, or an entity working on their behalf such as a custom applicator, may reserve a quantity of methyl bromide in the system. The reservation will generate a self certification form which may be printed out, signed, and sent to the supplier. On a quarterly basis, the entity that entered the original reservation would have to close out the reservation by indicating if the reserved amount was used, cancelled, refunded, or available for sale on the secondary market. A similar system is already in place for the management of Telone, a significant alternative to methyl bromide, in California. The proposed methyl bromide CUE system is different from the Telone tracking system because the proposed system does not require real time tracking and allows users more time to close out their reservations. Additionally, the proposed system allows end users to make reservations themselves without having to rely on a supplier to make a reservation for them, thus providing additional market power to those end users willing to accept quarterly tracking obligation. However, it allows end user to opt out of this obligation and instead rely on their supplier for such activities.

One policy issue not addressed by the option proposed nor by options one and two is the issue of windfall profits or non social cost transfers to producers and importers. A policy solution to address windfall profits would include an excise tax or an auction of permits to end users. In  13 addition, a system where permits are given to users downstream and then sold by the users to producers and importers to allow for the production or import of methyl bromide, would also impact windfall profits. The later framework option was recently suggested to EPA and EPA will seek comment on this option in the proposed rulemaking. EPA did not propose this option because of concerns raised by producers and users that the supply of methyl bromide must be created with minimal interference. Producers argue that they need a certain amount of time for their planning horizon to make production decisions.

Under other parts of the phaseout program, the U. S. Treasury Department has statutory authority to implement an excise tax on specified ozone depleting substances ( ODS). Such taxes prevent producers from amassing large stockpiles of ODS. They also reduce windfall profits since the price of the ODS to the end user was already high due to the tax thus minimizing a suppliers' ability to further increase the price. The Treasury Department does not have statutory authority to tax methyl bromide. For more information on the history of taxing ozone depleting substances please see " Taxing Pollution" an article by J. Andrew Hoerner in WRI's publication Ozone Protection in the United States: Elements of Success.

It is unclear to EPA what the ultimate price of methyl bromide might be since we know relatively little about the demand elasticity for methyl bromide fumigation in the various end use categories. Unless a tax is set at a point that equals the difference between the baseline price and the maximum amount that users are willing to pay, the methyl bromide suppliers would still be able to charge some incremental profit as a result of the scarcity created by the phaseout and subsequent regulations. In addition, some in the regulated community argue that the non social cost transfer issue is not as significant as it might initially seem. They argue that EPA is eliminating their ability to derive a profit from methyl bromide in perpetuity and that temporary profits are compensation for the future loss.

Further details regarding the de regulatory benefits of the proposed critical use exemption  14 are discussions on the relative merits of the two main options are available in the attached EIA.


[Federal Register: February 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 35)]
[Notices]
[Page 9182-9183]
[DOCID:fr22fe06-164]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week
of February 20, 2006:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 2
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries

will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an
interest in the matters may also be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
February 23, 2006 will be:
    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 16, 2006.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-1665 Filed 2-17-06; 11:18 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59918-59919]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17172]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11240-01-R9]

Revision of Approved Primacy Program for the Navajo Nation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Navajo Nation revised its
approved primacy program under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) by adopting regulations that effectuate the Federal Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (S2 DBPR) and the Ground
Water Rule (GWR). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
determined that Navajo Nation's revision request meets the applicable
SDWA program revision requirements and the regulations adopted by the
Navajo Nation are no less stringent than the corresponding federal
regulations. Therefore, EPA approves this revision to Navajo Nation's
approved primacy program. However, this determination on the Navajo
Nation's request for approval of a program revision shall take effect
in accordance with the procedures described below in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice after the opportunity to request a
public hearing.

DATES: A request for a public hearing must be received or postmarked
before September 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Documents relating to this determination that were submitted
by the Navajo Nation as part of its program revision request are
available for public inspection online at https://www.navajoepa.org or
available upon request by emailing [email protected].
Should you have difficulty accessing the website, please contact
Yolanda Barney, Navajo Nation PWSS Program, via email at
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nnana Edmund, EPA Region 9, Drinking
Water Section; via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email address at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background. EPA approved the Navajo Nation's
initial application for primary enforcement authority (``primacy'') of
drinking water systems on October 23, 2000. Since initial primacy
approval, EPA has approved various revisions to Navajo Nation's primacy
program. For the revision covered by this action, EPA promulgated the
S2 DBPR on January 4, 2006 (71 FR 387) with technical corrections on
January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4644) and June 29, 2006 (71 FR 37168) and minor
corrections on November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67456-87463) to strengthen
public health protection by tightening compliance monitoring
requirements for Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic acids, targeting public
water systems with the greatest health risk. EPA promulgated the GWR on
November 8, 2006 (71 FR 65574) to provide protection against microbial
pathogens in public water systems using groundwater sources. EPA has
determined that the Navajo Nation has incorporated by reference into
law, the S2 DBPR and GWR requirements that are comparable to and no
less stringent than the federal requirements. EPA has also determined
that Navajo Nation's program revision request meets all of the
regulatory requirements for approval, as set forth in 40 CFR 142.12,
including a side-by-side comparison of the Federal requirements
demonstrating the corresponding Navajo Nation authorities, additional
materials to support special primacy requirements of 40 CFR 142.16, a
review of the requirements contained in 40 CFR 142.10 necessary for
Navajo Nation to attain and retain primary enforcement responsibility,
and a statement by the Navajo Nation Attorney General certifying that
Navajo Nation's laws and regulations to carry out the program revision
were duly adopted and are enforceable. The Attorney General's statement
also affirms that there are no environmental audit privilege and
immunity laws that would impact Navajo Nation's ability to implement or
enforce the Navajo Nation laws and regulations pertaining to the
program revision. Therefore, EPA approves this revision of the Navajo
Nation's approved primacy program. The Technical Support Document,
which provides the EPA's analysis of the Navajo Nation's program
revision request, is available by submitting a request to the following
email address: [email protected]. Please note ``Technical Support
Document'' in the subject line of the email.
    Public Process. Any interested person may request a public hearing
on this determination. A request for a public hearing must be received
or postmarked before September 29, 2023 and addressed to the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region 9, via the following email address: [email protected], or by contacting the EPA Region 9 contact person
listed above in this notice by telephone if you do not have access to
email. Please note ``Program Revision Determination'' in the subject
line of the email. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing. If a timely request for a public
hearing is made, then EPA Region 9 may hold a public hearing. Any
request for a public hearing shall include the following information:
1. The name, address, and telephone number of the individual,
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; 2. A brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting
person intends to submit at such hearing; and 3. The signature of the
individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of
an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible
official of the organization or other entity.
    If EPA Region 9 does not receive a timely request for a hearing or
a request for a hearing was denied by the Regional Administrator for
being frivolous or insubstantial, and the Regional Administrator does
not elect to hold a hearing on their own motion, EPA's approval shall
become final and effective on September 29, 2023, and no further public
notice will be issued.
    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 300g-2 (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations.

    Dated: August 8, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2023-17172 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 201)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61343-61346]
[DOCID:fr16oc08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0749; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-044-AD;
Amendment 39-15692; AD 2008-21-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Air Tractor, Inc. Models AT-402, AT-
402A, and AT-402B Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Air Tractor, Inc. (Air Tractor) Models AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B
airplanes. This AD requires you to repetitively visually inspect the
rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure for loose fasteners
and inspect the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges, or
brackets for cracks and/or corrosion. This AD also requires you to
replace any damaged parts found as a result of the inspections and
install an external doubler at the upper rudder hinge. Installation of
the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge is terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements. This AD results from a
report of a Model AT-402 airplane with a loose upper rudder hinge
caused by fatigue. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loose
fasteners; any cracks in the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars,
hinges, or brackets; or corrosion of the rudder and vertical fin hinge
attaching structure. Hinge failure adversely affects ability to control
yaw and has led to the rudder folding over in flight. This condition
could allow the rudder to contact the elevator and affect ability to
control pitch with consequent loss of control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on November 20, 2008.
    On November 20, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter
247, revised June 2, 2008, listed in this AD.
    As of December 21, 2006 (71 FR 66661, November 16, 2006), the
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Snow Engineering Co. Process Specification Number 145,
dated December 6, 1991, listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Air
Tractor, Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas

76374; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site: http://www.airtractor.com.
    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-2008-0749;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-044-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
10100 Reunion Pl, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 1, 2008, 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 Air Tractor Models AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B
airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on July 8, 2008 (73 FR 38933). The
NPRM proposed to require you to repetitively visually inspect the
rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure for loose fasteners
and inspect the rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges, or
brackets for cracks and/or corrosion. This AD would also require you to
replace any damaged parts found as a result of the inspections and
install an external doubler at the upper rudder hinge. Installation of
the external doubler at the upper rudder hinge is terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

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 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 affects 220 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the inspection:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost
                   Labor cost                                 Parts cost               Total cost      on U.S.
                                                                                per airplane    operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $80 per hour = $80................  Not applicable....................          $80       $17,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any required replacements will vary depending upon the damage
found, and any replacements required will vary based on the results of
the inspection. Based on this, we have no way of determining the
potential replacement costs for each airplane or the number of
airplanes that will need the replacements based on the result of the
inspections.
    We estimate the following costs to do installation of the external
doubler at the upper rudder hinge:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Total cost
          Labor cost             Parts cost    Total cost      on U.S.
                                              per airplane    operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $80 per hour =          $217          $617      $135,740
 $400.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-2008-0749; Directorate Identifier 2008 CE-044-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 the following new AD:

2008-21-08 Air Tractor, Inc.: Amendment 39-15692; Docket No. FAA-
2008-0749; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-044-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on November 20, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models AT-402, AT-402A, and AT-402B
airplanes, serial numbers 0694 through 1176, that are certificated
in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of a Model AT-402 airplane
with a loose upper rudder hinge caused by fatigue. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct loose fasteners; any cracks in the
rudder or vertical fin skins, spars, hinges, or brackets; or
corrosion of the rudder and vertical fin hinge attaching structure.
Hinge failure adversely affects ability to control yaw and has led
to the rudder folding over in flight. This condition could allow the
rudder to contact the elevator and affect ability to control pitch
with consequent loss of control.

Compliance

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Actions                  Compliance          Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (1) Inspect visually the rudder   Initially inspect   Follow Snow
 and vertical fin hinge            when the airplane   Engineering Co.
 attachment for loose fasteners;   reaches a total     Service Letter
 and inspect the rudder or         of 3,500 hours      247,
 vertical fin skins, spars,        time-in-service     revised June 2,
 hinges, and brackets for cracks   (TIS) or within     2008.
 and/or corrosion.                 the next 100
                                   hours TIS after
                                   November 20, 2008
                                   (the effective
                                   date of this AD),
                                   whichever occurs
                                   later.
                                   Thereafter,
                                   repetitively
                                   inspect at
                                   intervals not to
                                   exceed every 100
                                   hours TIS.
                                   Installation of
                                   the external
                                   doubler at the
                                   upper rudder
                                   hinge required by
                                   paragraph
                                   (e)(2)(ii) or
                                   (e)(3) of this AD
                                   is terminating
                                   action for the
                                   repetitive
                                   inspections
                                   required by this
                                   AD.
 (2) If you find any damage as a
 result of any inspection
 required by paragraph (e)(1) of
 this AD, you must:
    (i) Replace any damaged
     parts with new parts; and
    (ii) Do the installation of   Before further      Follow Snow
     the external doubler at the   flight after any    Engineering Co.
     upper rudder hinge.           inspection          Service Letter
                                   required by         247,
                                   paragraph (e)(1)    revised June 2,
                                   of this AD where    2008; and Snow
                                   you find any        Engineering Co.
                                   damaged parts.      Process
                                   The installation    Specification
                                   of the external     Number 145, dated
                                   doubler at the      December 6, 1991.
                                   upper rudder
                                   hinge required by
                                   paragraph
                                   (e)(2)(ii) or
                                   (e)(3) of this AD
                                   terminates the
                                   repetitive
                                   inspections
                                   required by this
                                   AD.
(3) Do the installation of the     When the airplane   Follow Snow
 external doubler at the upper     reaches a total     Engineering Co.
 rudder hinge.                     of 5,000 hours      Service Letter
                                   TIS after           247,
                                   November 20, 2008   revised June 2,
                                   (the effective      2008; and Snow
                                   date of this AD)    Engineering Co.
                                   or within the       Process
                                   next 100 hours      Specification
                                   TIS after           Number 145, dated
                                   November 20, 2008   December 6, 1991.
                                   (the effective
                                   date of this AD),
                                   whichever occurs
                                   later. The
                                   installation of
                                   the external
                                   doubler at the
                                   upper rudder
                                   hinge required by
                                   paragraph
                                   (e)(2)(ii) or
                                   (e)(3) of this AD
                                   terminates the
                                   repetitive
                                   inspections
                                   required by this
                                   AD.
 (4) Do not install any rudder    As of November 20,   Not Applicable.
 without the external doubler at   2008 (the
 the upper rudder hinge required   effective date of
 by paragraph (e)(3) of this AD.   this AD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100
Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210)
308-3365; facsimile:<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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (g) You must use Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter
247, revised June 2, 2008; and Snow Engineering Co. Process
Specification Number 145, dated December 6, 1991, 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 Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter
247, revised June 2, 2008, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
    (2) On December 21, 2006 (71 FR 66661, November 16, 2006), the
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Snow Engineering Co. Process Specification Number 145,
dated December 6, 1991.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Air
Tractor, Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; telephone: (940)
564-5616; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Web site: http://www.airtractor.com.
    (4) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_
of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-24137 Filed 10-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 27229]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2015-0023]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated March 9, 2015, DPS Electronics has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR 221.13(d). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2015-0023.
    DPS Electronics is seeking a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR
221.13(d), Marking device display, which requires that the centroid of
the marking device be located a minimum of 48 inches above the top of
the rail. DPS would like to propose a marking device that will be
located 41.3 to 44.3 inches (depending on final design) above the top
of the rail.
    DPS is currently working on a new end-of-train device (ETD) design,
the DPS 2020-He2. DPS's plan is to reduce weight to well under 15
pounds. They propose doing so by reducing the enclosure size of the ETD
to about 16 inches in height. DPS states that a 15 pound or less ETD
will enhance railroad safety for all North American railways by
reducing the risk of injuries to employees.
    A copy of the petition, technical attachments, as well as any
written communications concerning the petition, is available for review
online at www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received by June 26, 2015 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2015.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2015-11446 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P