[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4407-4408]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

The Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 12, 2010, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, C,
and D, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Deborah Falls, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-
800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512513. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On March 12, 2010, the committee will discuss, make
recommendations, and vote on a premarket approval application for the
Deep Brain Stimulation System for Epilepsy sponsored by Medtronic, Inc.
This device is indicated as adjunctive therapy for reducing the
frequency of seizures in individuals diagnosed with epilepsy. For this
device, a patient's epilepsy should be characterized by partial-onset
seizures (affecting only a part of the brain when they begin), with or
without secondary generalization that are refractory to antiepileptic
medications. ``Secondary generalization'' is used to describe a
partial-onset seizure that later spreads to the whole brain.
``Refractory'' to antiepileptic medications means that the patient's
epilepsy does not respond to approved medications.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 5, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at
approximately 1 p.m., immediately following lunch. Those desiring to
make formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and
submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to
make their presentation on or before February 25, 2010. Time allotted
for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated
during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a
lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing
session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding
their request to speak by February 26, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Conference Management Staff,<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in advance
of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 19, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-1519 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 40264]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16057]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Bird/Other
Wildlife Strike Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 19, 2013, vol. 78, no. 76, pages 23628-23629.
Wildlife strike data are collected to develop standards and monitor
hazards to aviation.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0045
    Title: Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 5200-7.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR 139.337--Wildlife Hazard Management requires
that wildlife strike data is collected to develop standards and monitor
hazards to aviation. Data identify wildlife strike control requirements
and provide in service data on aircraft component failure. The FAA form
5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report, is most often completed by
the pilot-in-charge of an aircraft involved in a wildlife collision or
by Air Traffic Control Tower personnel, or other airline or airport
personnel who have knowledge of the incident.
    Respondents: Approximately 7,666 pilots, air traffic control
personnel, or other airline or airport personnel.
    Frequency: Information is collected as needed.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 613 hours.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-16057 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28738-28741]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0334]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Miles 109.9 to 647.8,
Chester, IL to Guttenberg, IA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM)
109.9 to MM 647.8 between Chester, IL and Guttenberg, IA. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the
marine environment on these navigable waters as a result of increasing
flood conditions on the river that threaten to overtop levees. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper

Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from June 20, 2019
through July 1, 2019. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from June 1, 2019 through June 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0334 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Christian Barger, Sector Upper
Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
UMR Upper Mississippi River
WAP Waterways Action Plan

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is extending this temporary rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is
impracticable because we must establish this safety zone immediately
and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and
then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process
would delay the establishment of the safety zone and compromise public
safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to public interest because immediate action is necessary to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with floodwaters and
high flow of the river.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that
potential hazards associated with flood waters threaten to overtop
levees along the river due to reports that vessel traffic in the
affected area is causing water to overtop levees resulting in increased
damage to the levees and flooding impacts to local communities and
residential areas. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of
persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these navigable waters
due to the flood impacts to USACE levees.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule extends a current temporary safety zone due to
unanticipated longevity and geographic scope of flooding conditions and
establishes a temporary safety zone from June 1, 2019 through July 1,
2019, or until cancelled by the COTP, whichever occurs first. The
safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi
River from MM 109.9 to MM 647.8 unless reduced in scope by the COTP as
flood conditions warrant to prevent damage to residential areas and the
overtopping of levees.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under
the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek
permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative
via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone
must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or
designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will
inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well
as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement, as well as
reductions in size of the safety zone as flood conditions improve,
through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as
appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the emergency
nature of the action and the increasing flow rates and river height.
When the Upper Mississippi River gauge in St. Louis, MO reaches 38 feet
above zero, increased flow rates and vertical clearances associated
with bridges in the St. Louis area between MM 179 and MM 184 result in
difficulty with making safe approaches to the bridges and increase the
potential for bridge strikes. When the Upper Mississippi River gauge at
St. Louis, MO reaches 45 feet above zero, increased flow rates and
river heights coupled with passing vessels will threaten overtopping or
failure of levees between MM 109.9 and MM 179. Additionally, above St.
Louis, MO, between MM 184 to 647.8, increased flow rates and river
heights coupled with passing vessels will threaten overtopping or
failure of levees and as levees fail or are overtopped potentially
cause destructive wake effects to residents and other structures in the
inundated areas. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNM via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations

that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a temporary safety zone prohibiting entry on a 538 mile stretch of the
Upper Mississippi River that is experiencing significant flooding. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60 (d)
of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.
01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.T08-0334 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0334  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Miles 109.9,
Chester, IL to 647.8 Guttenberg, IA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 109.9 to MM
647.8. This section will be enforced on all navigable waters of the
Upper Mississippi River from MM 109.9 to MM 647.8, unless reduced in
scope by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP)
as flood conditions warrant.
    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective without actual notice
from June 20, 2019 until July 1, 2019, or until cancelled by the COTP,
whichever occurs first. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be provided on June 1, 2019 until June 20, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general safety zone
regulations in Sec.  165.23, entry of persons or vessels into this
safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational
control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper
Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to
enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
issued by the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement, as well as reductions in

size of the safety zone as flood conditions improve, through Local
Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: June 1, 2019.
S.A. Stoermer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2019-12944 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 24, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1997-2651

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  SERVICIOS AERONAUTICOS Z, S.A. de C.V.
                    Date Filed: March 16, 2004

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in
accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  April 22, 2003, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Daniel Elizondo,<PHONE_NUMBER>        DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
              Action date:  May 24, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 24, 2004, through May 24,
2005.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
                             2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE
                           ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF
									AIR AND RADIATION

March 1, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Test Program to establish LDV Full Useful Life PM Performance

FROM:	Rafal Sobotowski  -  USEPA/OTAQ/ASD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:		EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of the Full Useful Life Program

      In order to establish the feasibility of the particulate matter (PM) emission standards proposed in the Tier 3 rule, the U.S. EPA conducted a test program to measure PM emissions from Tier 2 light-duty vehicles.  The test program was designed to measure PM emissions from late model year vehicles that represented a significant volume of annual light duty sales and included vehicles that ranged from small cars through trucks, including a cross section of technologies from port fuel injected (PFI) engines to gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines.  In addition, one PFI vehicle was included with known high oil consumption.

      Seventeen model year 2005-2010 Tier 2 Bin 4, 5, and 8 vehicles were tested at the U.S. EPA National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) facility.  A summary of their characteristics is provided in Table 1. They included ten cars and seven trucks. Fifteen of these vehicles had accumulated 102,000-124,000 miles prior to the launch of the test program.  One vehicle had accumulated 37,000 miles and another accumulated 21,000 miles. Three cars and one truck were equipped with Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engines.  Twelve of the seventeen test vehicles had previously been used in the Department of Energy (DOE) V4 Program.  The remaining five vehicles were recruited in southeastern Michigan.

      The twelve vehicles acquired from the DOE V4 Program were selected to represent a broad cross section of some of the highest sales vehicles in the U.S. market for model years 2005-2009.  These vehicles had originally been purchased by DOE with odometer readings ranging from 10,000-60,000 miles, placed in a mileage accumulation program and operated over the EPA Standard Road Cycle on a test track or on mileage accumulation dynamometers to 110,000-120,000 miles.  Immediately prior to inclusion in the EPA PM Test Program, the test vehicles were serviced per the manufacturer's published service schedule and maintenance procedures and underwent engine oil aging over a distance of 1,000 miles accumulated over the EPA Standard Road Cycle to stabilize engine oil contribution to PM emissions.

      One vehicle (vehicle K) tested from the DOE V4 program was suspected of having atypically high oil consumption and had only 37,000 miles of mileage accumulation. Vehicle K was a duplicate of Vehicle C and was determined to consume two and one half times the average oil consumption of vehicle C and three vehicles of the same make, model and model year which were tested within the DOE V4 program. Vehicle K did not accumulate 120,000 miles because it was removed from the mileage accumulation program after the atypical oil consumption was confirmed.  Vehicle K was tested in this program to investigate the potential impact of high oil consumption on PM emissions.  Three recruited test vehicles were selected because they used GDI technology and one GDI equipped vehicle was obtained from the DOE V4 Program.  Vehicle Q was recruited for another test program but was included in this program because it was a GDI technology vehicle.  Otherwise, an attempt was made to only recruit vehicles approaching the 120,000 mile useful life level.  All of the recruited test vehicles were thoroughly inspected, but otherwise tested as received.

      All vehicles were tested on an E15 fuel with RVP, aromatic content, sulfur content, T50 and T90 of 9.1 psi, 23.8 vol%, 7 ppm, 160F and 311F, respectively.  The properties of this fuel approximated those of a projected E15 market fuel.

      The test program included three cold start and three hot start UDDS tests and three US06 tests conducted on each vehicle.  FTP results were calculated for gaseous and PM emissions by applying the cold-start and hot-start weighting factors to the complete cold and hot UDDS results, respectively.  This eliminated separate analysis of the typically very low concentration FTP phase-2 gaseous and PM emissions samples and represented one method proposed within 40 CFR 1066 for increasing sample integration of measured gaseous and PM mass.  During these tests, triplicate PM samples were collected in parallel on PTFE membranes and single (composite) PM samples were collected on primary and secondary quartz filters for Thermol Optical Reflectance (TOR)  Organic Carbon (OC) and Elemental Carbon (EC)  PM speciation analysis.  Additional quartz filters were collected to determine the contribution of gas-phase artifact to the OC collected on the quartz filter samples.  The compositing of quartz filters over three repeats of each test was done to enhance the precision of subsequent OC/EC thermogravimetric measurements.  Single background (dilution air) PM samples were also taken during each emissions test.  Weekly tunnel blank and field blank PM samples were also collected.

      The following parameters were measured: NOX, NMHC, NMOG, alcohols, carbonyls, CO, CH4, CO2 and fuel consumption and PM mass as per the 40 CFR 1065 and the proposed 40 CFR part 1066 test procedures.  Limited exhaust HC speciation was also performed.

      PM composition was determined from filter samples taken on both quartz filters and PTFE membranes.  PM compositional analyses include determination of the contribution of elemental and organic carbon to PM mass, elemental analysis via energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence (EDXRF), and sulfate analysis via ion chromatography.
Table 1. Vehicles tested as part of EPA's Light-Duty Vehicle PM Test Program
Vehicle Make, Model and Designation
Model Year
Certified to Emissions Standard
Odometer at Start of Program, miles
Fuel Delivery[a]
Used in DOE V4 Program?
Honda Civic
A
2009
Tier 2/Bin 5
121,329
PFI
Yes
Toyota Corolla
B
2009
Tier 2/Bin 5
120,929
PFI
Yes
Honda Accord
C
2007
Tier 2/Bin 5
123,695
PFI
Yes
Dodge Caliber
D
2007
Tier 2/Bin 5
114,706
PFI
Yes
Chevrolet Impala
E
2006
Tier 2/Bin 5
114,284
PFI
Yes
Ford Taurus
F
2008
Tier 2/Bin 5
115,444
PFI
Yes
Toyota Tundra
G
2005
Tier 2/Bin 5
121,243
PFI
Yes
Chrysler Caravan
H
2007
Tier 2/Bin 5
116,742
PFI
Yes
Jeep Liberty
I
2009
Tier 2/Bin 5
121,590
PFI
Yes
Ford Explorer
J
2009
Tier 2/Bin 4
121,901
PFI
Yes
Honda Accord
K
2007
Tier 2/Bin 5
36,958
PFI
Yes
Ford F150
L
2005
Tier 2/Bin 8
111,962
PFI
No
VW Passat
M
2006
Tier 2/Bin 5
102,886
TGDI
No
Chevrolet Silverado
P
2006
Tier 2/Bin 8
110,898
PFI
No
Manufacturer's Development Vehicle[b]
N
PC
None (Tier 2/LEV II Prototype)[*]
120,011
TGDI
No
Saturn Outlook
O
2009
Tier 2/Bin 5
123,337
GDI
Yes
Cadillac STS4
Q
2010
Tier 2/Bin 5
21,266
GDI

No
Notes:
[a] PFI is Naturally aspirated, port fuel injected; GDI is Naturally aspirated, gasoline direct injection; TGDI is Turbocharged, gasoline direct injection
[b] Manufacturer's developmental vehicle.  Vehicle used a spray-guided GDI fuel system with a centrally-mounted injector and turbocharging.  Emissions were targeted at Tier 2 Bin 5 or better.

Original Particulate Matter Results (Fall 2011)

      The original particulate matter test results measured in this program are plotted in Figure 1 and Figure 2, for the FTP and US06 test cycles, respectively.  In the figures, the vehicles are divided into two groups: PFI and GDI.  Within each group they are listed in the sequence of increasing CO2 emissions on the FTP test cycle.  The colored bars shown in the figures represent the means by test cycle and vehicle, and include accompanying standard deviations.  The data points indicate the average emissions for each individual vehicle test.  The number of tests, mean PM emission rates, and standard deviations by vehicle are tabulated in Tables 2 and 3.  All reported tests passed the Federal Register proportionality requirements for particulate sampling light-duty gasoline exhaust[iv].  Vehicles I and M are not included in Figure 3 because the tests did not meet the proportionality requirements on the FTP cycle.

      As shown, the original PM emission rates for PFI vehicles were quite low on the FTP cycle, but were very high on the US06 for several PFI vehicles.  The original results on the US06 showed that several of the PFI vehicles had very high PM emission rates, which tended to be the higher-weight trucks.

Figure 1. Original composite FTP PM emission results. Individual test results are marked with data points, average test results by vehicle +- 1 standard deviation are displayed with the bar graphs.

Figure 2. Original US06 PM emission results. Individual test results are marked with data points, average test results by vehicle +- 1 standard deviation are displayed with the bar graphs.

PM Sampling Contamination Issue

      Upon review of the elemental analysis results, high concentrations of silicon (Si) were discovered on some of the PTFE filters. Corresponding Si emission rates in mg/mile are reported in Tables 2 and 3, and displayed in Figure 3 and 4 for the FTP and US06 cycles. The highest Si emission rates were all measured on the US06 cycle, and were more than an order of magnitude higher than the highest Si emission rate reported on the FTP cycle. The Si emission rates on the US06 exhibited substantial variability, spanning four orders of magnitude among the different vehicles. The highest Si emission rates occurred predominately on the trucks. Each of the vehicles with high Si emission rates also had high PM emission rates on the US06.

       Table 2. Original FUL FTP composite PM and Si results by vehicle
                                    Vehicle
                                     Tests
                               PM mean  (mg/mi)
                                 PM sd (mg/mi)
                                Si mean (ug/mi)
                                 Si sd (ug/mi)
                                       A
                                       3
                                     0.27
                                     0.11
                                      9.5
                                      2.8
                                       B
                                       3
                                     0.22
                                     0.09
                                      5.1
                                      3.5
                                       C
                                       3
                                     0.18
                                     0.07
                                      5.6
                                      1.4
                                       K
                                       3
                                     0.93
                                     0.23
                                      3.6
                                      0.7
                                       D
                                       3
                                     0.45
                                     0.10
                                     11.4
                                      0.8
                                       E
                                       3
                                     0.14
                                     0.03
                                      2.9
                                      1.3
                                       F
                                       3
                                     0.11
                                     0.06
                                      4.8
                                      1.3
                                       G
                                       3
                                     0.36
                                     0.05
                                     11.6
                                      3.6
                                       H
                                       3
                                     0.40
                                     0.22
                                     13.8
                                      4.9
                                       I
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       P
                                       3
                                     1.22
                                     0.12
                                     22.0
                                      2.5
                                       J
                                       3
                                     0.11
                                     0.10
                                     10.2
                                      5.8
                                       L
                                       3
                                     0.81
                                     0.14
                                     16.8
                                      5.6
                                       N
                                       3
                                     2.55
                                     0.74
                                     47.9
                                      4.2
                                       M
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       O
                                       2
                                     4.72
                                     0.30
                                     84.6
                                      3.5
                                       Q
                                       1
                                     7.15
                                       -
                                     73.0
                                       -

       Table 3. Original FUL US06 Composite PM and Si results by vehicle
                                    Vehicle
                                     Tests
                               PM mean  (mg/mi)
                                 PM sd (mg/mi)
                                Si mean (ug/mi)
                                 Si sd (ug/mi)
                                       A
                                       2
                                     0.76
                                     0.35
                                     18.4
                                      0.2
                                       B
                                       3
                                     2.05
                                     0.41
                                     225.6
                                     61.9
                                       C
                                       3
                                     1.05
                                     0.36
                                     101.5
                                     36.4
                                       K
                                       3
                                     2.84
                                     1.08
                                     257.5
                                     128.7
                                       D
                                       3
                                     7.39
                                     3.16
                                    1447.5
                                     605.0
                                       E
                                       3
                                     0.46
                                     0.36
                                     10.1
                                      7.4
                                       F
                                       3
                                     1.61
                                     0.09
                                     243.6
                                      5.8
                                       G
                                       2
                                     5.84
                                     1.10
                                     866.7
                                     350.2
                                       H
                                       3
                                     2.04
                                     0.64
                                     295.0
                                     84.6
                                       I
                                       2
                                     24.44
                                     19.26
                                    4349.7
                                    3939.1
                                       P
                                       3
                                     29.46
                                     2.10
                                    4777.3
                                    1119.4
                                       J
                                       3
                                     41.93
                                     5.97
                                    7441.1
                                    1038.2
                                       L
                                       3
                                     8.82
                                     1.21
                                    1298.3
                                     18.5
                                       N
                                       3
                                     2.37
                                     0.25
                                     133.1
                                     19.1
                                       M
                                       3
                                     37.42
                                     18.59
                                     516.8
                                     250.3
                                       O
                                       3
                                     4.75
                                     1.03
                                     858.4
                                     247.7
                                       Q
                                       3
                                     11.13
                                     5.98
                                     629.9
                                     374.2

Figure 3. Original composite FTP silicon emission results. Individual test results are marked with data points, average test results by vehicle +- 1 standard deviation are displayed with the bar graphs.

Figure 4. Original composite US06 silicon emission results. Individual test results are marked with data points, average test results by vehicle +- 1 standard deviation are displayed with the bar graphs.

      Sources of contamination were investigated in the test cell used for this program at the NVFEL facility.  The investigation discovered that silicone elastomer transfer tubes (pictured in Figure 5) were used to transfer the tailpipe exhaust from the vehicle to the constant volume sampler (CVS) system.  Silicone is a polymer that contains Si, C, H, and O atoms, which can break down at high temperature and exposure to lubricating oil[v]. The silicone tubes were suspected as the source of the high measured Si and PM rates on the US06.  Maricq et al. (1999) confirmed that silicone couplers can contribute to high concentrations of ultrafine particles measured under high exhaust temperatures[vi].

   Figure 5. Silicone exhaust transfer tubes used in initial NVFEL testing

      A follow-up investigation program was conducted to verify the effect of silicone sampling lines on PM emissions and to assess its magnitude on the PM emission rates. Vehicle J (Ford Explorer) was selected for the investigation follow-up test program because it was the vehicle with the highest recorded PM and Si emission rates on the US06 test cycle. Three US06 tests were conducted with the silicone rubber transfer lines, and three tests with stainless steel transfer lines. Figure 6 graphs the PM emission rates recorded from the 2009 Ford Explorer. The average PM emission rates were 10.28 mg/mile with the silicone transfer tube and 0.92 mg/mi with the stainless steel transfer line. The Si emission rates with the silicone transfer tube were on average 0.91 mg/mile, but were only 0.003 mg/mile with the stainless steel transfer line. Using the results from the follow-up Ford Explorer US06 tests, almost all the PM measured on the US06 was coming from the silicone transfer tube. As suspected, the measured elemental silicon was only a portion of the silicone break down products that contributed to the particulate mass on the PTFE filter samples. In the case of the follow-up investigation, the elemental Si only contributed ~ 10% of the increase in measured PM. The follow-up study confirmed that silicone elastomer exhaust connections exposed as wetted surface area to hot engine exhaust can contribute substantially to particulate matter filter sample mass from CVS samples.

Figure 6. US06 PM results from follow-up investigation on silicone elastomer transfer tubes

Criteria for Test Removal

      The follow-up investigation demonstrated that samples contaminated excessively by silicone transfer lines were no longer valid and need to be excluded.  The elemental Si emission rates were used to identify tests with excessive silicone contamination.  The follow-up test program estimated that silicone lines can contribute up to 10 times as much PM as measured elemental Si, yielding a PM:Si ratio of 10.  The PM:Si ratio likely varies test-to-test and vehicle-to-vehicle, and the PM:Si ratio for most tests appears to be smaller than 10.  By applying a 10:1 PM:Si ratio to the US06 Si data in Table 3, the silicone transfer tube would contribute more PM than was measured for nine of the sixteen vehicles, including Vehicle J (Ford Explorer).

      All vehicles that had elemental Si emission rates greater than 300 ug/mi (0.3 mg/mi) were excluded.  This limit was selected to assure that none of the high PM emission rates on the US06 were caused by silicone contamination.  This criteria excluded eight vehicle tests on the US06: one PFI car (Vehicle D), five PFI trucks (Vehicle G, I, P, J, L) and two of the GDI vehicles (Vehicle  Q, O).  Using this criterion, the silicone transfer tube cannot contribute more than 2.84 mg/mile in the any of the remaining US06 PM averages, because all the remaining US06 PM values are less than 2.84 mg/mi (Vehicle K), notwithstanding the remaining Si rates are below 300 ug/mi.

      The FTP tests had minor contributions of silicone contamination compared to the US06 cycle.  This is expected due to the smaller engine loads and lower exhausts temperatures experienced on the FTP cycle.  None of the FTP composite emission rates had Si emission rates above  100 ug/mile.  Assuming the 10:1 PM to Si ratio is an upper bound, the maximum silicone PM contribution on the final FTP results were 0.84 mg/mile, using the maximum FTP Si emissions recorded from Vehicle O.

Supplemental Test Program (Summer 2012)

      The light-duty trucks with the four highest US06 PM and Si rates (J, I, L, and P) were retested at the NVFEL laboratory with stainless steel exhaust transfer lines on the same test fuel as the original test program.  The results for both the FTP and US06 from the stainless steel tests were used to replace the original data.

      The final set of PM results (which includes all the retests) is graphed in Figure 7 and Figure 8 for the FTP and US06 test cycles, respectively.  The final average PM emission rates, number of tests and standard deviations are presented in Table 4.  The quality control criteria of 300 ug/mile appears to be a reasonable cutoff for excluding vehicle tests from the sample for demonstrating compliance.  Vehicle I had the highest PM emission rates in the final US06 data set which was tested with the stainless steel transfer line.  The US06 cycle PM emission rates from four vehicles (D, G, M and O) were removed due to silicone contamination and were not retested.  The FTP results from three of these vehicles are reported.  The FTP results from Vehicle M were removed due to proportionality requirements as discussed earlier.

Figure 7. Final composite FTP PM emission results. Individual test results are marked with data points, average test results by vehicle +- 1 standard deviation are displayed with the bar graphs.

Figure 8. Final US06 PM emission results. Individual test results are marked with data points, average test results by vehicle +- 1 standard deviation are displayed with the bar graphs.

         Table 4. Final PM results for the composite FTP and the US06

                                 Composite FTP
                                     US06
Vehicle
                                       n
                                 Mean  (mg/mi)
                                  SD (mg/mi)
                                       n
                                 Mean (mg/mi)
                                  SD (mg/mi)
                                       A
                                       3
                                     0.27
                                     0.11
                                       2
                                     0.76
                                     0.35
                                       B
                                       3
                                     0.22
                                     0.09
                                       3
                                     2.05
                                     0.41
                                       C
                                       3
                                     0.18
                                     0.07
                                       3
                                     1.05
                                     0.36
                                       K
                                       3
                                     0.93
                                     0.23
                                       3
                                     2.84
                                     1.08
                                       D
                                       3
                                     0.45
                                     0.10
                                   Removed
                                       E
                                       3
                                     0.14
                                     0.03
                                       3
                                     0.46
                                     0.36
                                       F
                                       3
                                     0.11
                                     0.06
                                       3
                                     1.61
                                     0.09
                                       G
                                       3
                                     0.36
                                     0.05
                                  Removed
                                       H
                                       3
                                     0.40
                                     0.22
                                       3
                                     2.04
                                     0.64
                                     I[1]
                                       2
                                     1.36
                                     0.08
                                       2
                                     3.31
                                     0.81
                                     P[1]
                                       3
                                     0.18
                                     0.06
                                       3
                                     1.83
                                     0.81
                                     J[1]
                                       3
                                     0.10
                                     0.04
                                       3
                                     0.27
                                     0.01
                                     L[1]
                                       3
                                     0.39
                                     0.13
                                       3
                                     2.13
                                     1.76
                                       N
                                       3
                                     2.55
                                     0.74
                                       3
                                     2.37
                                     0.25
                                       O
                                       2
                                     4.72
                                     0.30
                                   Removed
                                       Q
                                       1
                                     7.15
                                       -
                                   Removed
Notes:
[1]Retested vehicles at NVFEL laboratory with stainless steel

Discussion

      The silicone contamination issue had a very significant impact on the results of the US06 cycle, illustrated most dramatically with Vehicle J, which reduced the US06 PM emissions from over 40 mg/mile with the silicone contamination to under 1 mg/mile with the stainless steel transfer line. The silicone contamination on the FTP cycle was minor and no tests were removed or replaced due to silicone contamination.

      In the final data set, all but one of the PFI vehicles had FTP PM emission rates under 1 mg/mile, and all PFI vehicles had emissions below the proposed 3 mg/mi FTP standard.  On the US06 cycle all of the PFI vehicles were well in compliance of the proposed US06 standards, and all tests were below 4 mg/mile.

      The GDI vehicles all had higher FTP emissions than the highest tested PFI vehicle. In comparison to the proposed 3 mg/mi standard, only Vehicle N, the spray-guided OEM vehicle, had average FTP emissions below the standard. More testing on GDI vehicles is needed to evaluate their PM emissions on the US06 cycle, but the current testing shows that GDI technology (Vehicle N) can perform comparable to PFI engine technology on the US06 cycle.

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71308-71309]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0433; Directorate Identifier 94-ANE-39-AD;
Amendment 39-18041; AD 2014-24-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 98-07-07 for
all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4 and RB211-535E4-B turbofan
engines. AD 98-07-07 required removing certain part number (P/N) low-
pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure (HP) fuel pump tube
assemblies and installing flexible LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube
assemblies. This AD expands the applicability of AD 98-07-07 to include
the RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engine and requires removal from service
of additional P/N LP fuel filter-to-high-pressure HP fuel pump tube
assemblies. This AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks that have
resulted in a number of engine in-flight shutdowns. We are issuing this
AD to prevent loss of fuel supply to the engine, which could lead to an
in-flight shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and
damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective January 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England,
DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://www.aeromanager.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2014-
0433; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information,
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 98-07-07, Amendment 39-10426 (63 FR 18119,
April 14, 1998), (``AD 98-07-07''). AD 98-07-07 applied to the
specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July
24, 2014 (79 FR 42989). The NPRM proposed to expand the applicability
of AD 98-07-07 to include the RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engine and
added two additional P/Ns identified for removal.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Support for the NPRM as Proposed

    United Airlines supports issuing the NPRM (79 FR 42989, July 24,
2014) as proposed.

Request To Change the Compliance

    FedEx Express requested that the proposed AD require removal of
only fuel tube assemblies, P/Ns 163521538 and 163521545. These are the
only fuel tube assemblies that are required to be removed by RR Service
Bulletin No. RB.211-73-H131 and European Aviation Safety Agency AD
2014-0123.
    We do not agree. This AD will supersede AD 98-07-07. AD 98-07-07
required the removal of fuel tube assemblies, P/Ns UL16692 and
AE709623-1. Continuing to include these P/Ns would ensure, in the
unlikely event that there is an engine containing fuel tube assemblies,
P/Ns UL16692 and AE709623-1, that these fuel tube assemblies would
still be removed. We did not change this AD.

Change to the Compliance

    We changed paragraph (e)(2) of this AD to mandate installation of
LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assemblies eligible for
installation. Paragraph (e)(2) was changed to support the Costs of
Compliance as proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 42989, July 24, 2014).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 500 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 7.33 hours
per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
hour. Required parts cost about $10,000 per engine. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be
$5,311,525.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
98-07-07, Amendment 39-10426 (63 FR 18119, April 14, 1998), and adding
the following new AD:

2014-24-08 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-18041; Docket No. FAA-2014-
0433; Directorate Identifier 94-ANE-39-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 6, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 98-07-07, Amendment 39-10426 (63 FR 18119,
April 14, 1998).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535E4-37,
RB211-535E4-B-37, and RB211-535E4-C-37 turbofan engines with low-
pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure (HP) fuel pump tube
assembly, part number (P/N) UL16692, AE709623-1, 163521538, or
163521545, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fuel leaks that have resulted
in a number of engine in-flight shutdowns. We are issuing this AD to
prevent loss of fuel supply to the engine, which could lead to an
in-flight shutdown of one or more engines, loss of thrust control,
and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) After the effective date of this AD, remove from service all
LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assemblies, P/Ns UL16692,
AE709623-1, 163521538, and 163521545, at the next part removal or
during the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Install LP fuel filter-to-HP fuel pump tube assemblies
eligible for installation.

(f) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kenneth Steeves,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2014-0123,
dated May 15, 2014, for more information. You may examine the MCAI
in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0433-0005.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 20, 2014.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-28189 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


 Incorporation by Reference

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544

June 13, 2012

The contents of the following dockets are hereby incorporated by
reference into and are considered to be included in, contained in, and
to have been placed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544 (Pulp and Paper
Sector Rule):

A-92-40 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production--Chemical Wood Pulping Mills
(Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-chemical))

A-95-31 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production--Mechanical Mills, Secondary
Fiber Mills, Nonwood Mills, and Paper Machines)

OAR-2003-0205 (Site-specific Rulemaking for Packaging Corporation of
America's Pulp and Paper Mill Located in Tomahawk, Wisconsin; Pursuant
to the Joint State/EPA Agreement to Pursue Regulatory Innovation)

A-94-67 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills)

OAR-2002-0045 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills)

Accessing dockets:

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA’s Docket
Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. This Docket Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.


Environmental Impacts Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 10 18 the most important thing to keep in mind is that this Permit is not just about water quality. It is also about housing, jobs and economic growth. The absence of any meaningful consideration of these issues, in an effort to improve water quality at any cost, will have an immediate and significant impact on affordable housing, jobs, wages and livability. Meanwhile, there would be little, if any, certainty as to just how much water quality improvement would really be achieved. The cost of compliance with new requirements for small construction are contained in the Phase II Economic Analysis. Impacts of storm water discharges and an explanation of covered activities are contained in the Preamble to the Phase II Rule. These documents and similar cost comments and responses can be found either at www. epa. gov/ npdes/ stormwater or in the Administrative Record for the Phase II Rule in EPA's Office of Water Docket. 1039 10 253 The Fact Sheet assumes that post development flows will contain higher levels of pollutants, including total suspended solids, metals, nutrients, and oxygen demanding substances either during construction or under background conditions ( fact sheet 3.14( G)).

This assumption does not ring true in all instances and stands to unfairly cloud the issue of post development water quality. Numerous studies of pre and post development storm water runoff indicate that there are higher concentrations and loads of many pollutants in postdevelopment areas. While loads of nutrients and sediment CAN be reduced from a pre development condition of POOR agricultural land management to a post development condition with state of the art storm water management controls, this is not currently the standard land conversion situation in the United States. There are many other pollutants ( copper, zinc, PAHs) that are always more common in typical post development runoff than in typical predevelopment runoff. 1033 10 254 The Fact Sheet assumes that post development flows will contain higher levels of pollutants, including total suspended solids, metals, nutrients, and oxygendemanding substances either during construction or under background conditions. This assumption does not ring true in all instances and stands to unfairly cloud the issue of post development water quality

For example, in areas where agricultural lands are converted to urban uses, the levels of both sediment and nutrients can be dramatically reduced over predevelopment conditions. The Fact Sheet should not contain such unjustified and incorrect speculation, and should be revised to remove such assumptions. See response to comments 253 and 255 1039 1 Environmental Impacts Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 10 255 There would be no benefit to the environment as a result of the implementation of the NPDES permit requirements because the construction standards and procedures currently in effect would not change. EPA does believe that there would be a benefit to the environment as a result of implementation of the CGP requirements. Permit requirements would be applied to many more construction sites. EPA also believes that current standards are generally adequate; unfortunately they are not always fully implemented.

EPA has postponed for 2 years a final decision on the coverage of small ( less than 5 acres) oil and gas construction activities in order to more closely study the issue. 1043 10 256 It ... Best Management Practices demanded by Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements ... to date, has yielded no positive

environmental result for our industry. EPA does not have results of any formal evaluation of Pennsylvania's Erosion and Sedimentation Control program. EPA knows that BMPs, if properly designed, implemented and maintained, are generally effective at controlling erosion and sedimentation. 1012 10 257 Utility construction activities off the property of the development commonly occur in paved areas, with a short construction duration and reduced exposure to disturbed soil and therefore present extremely low potential for adverse impacts to surface waters from their storm water runoff. Utility construction activities in largely paved areas often result in notable discharge of construction site contaminants because of their immediate proximity to municipal storm drains and other drainage features ( swales,

ditches). These drainage systems typically convey sediment and other pollutants directly to surface waters. 1027 10 258 Considering the minimal environmental risk from storm water discharges from residential construction sites, it is reasonable for the regulated public to expect EPA to make the permitting process as simple and reasonable as possible, yet this is not the case here. EPA strives to make the permitting process as simple and reasonable as practicable for everyone. EPA believes that notable environmental degradation has and is occurring from residential construction activities across the country. 1068 2 Environmental Impacts Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 10 259 Construction sites are not a major source of water quality impairments. In the National Water Quality Inventory, 2000 Report ( October 3, 2002) each state and tribe provide detailed information to EPA regarding the   leading pollutants and  sources impairing rivers and streams, and lakes  While three of these pollutants are relevant to storm water runoff from construction sites, it seems clear that the states and tribes do not believe construction sites are a major source of impairment. It is important to note that the analysis   is in line with EPA's own assessment  In the final report estimating the cost of the offset provision in the proposed rule on the construction industry   It was concluded that "... it seems reasonable to assume that 2 3% of construction activity might be contributing to impairments."' ( Page 13 14, Final Draft, Analysis of the Incremental Cost of Proposed Revisions to the NPDES Permit and Water Quality Standards Rules, prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management by Environomics, Inc., July 30, 1999). EPA has concluded that construction sites are a major source of water quality impairments. Many states' National Water Quality Inventory Reports do not identify construction sites specifically as major sources, because construction sites are not one of the report categories. Also, because many state monitoring programs take place on 5 year cycles, and construction activities take place over shorter periods of time, states often do not have the necessary information to draw conclusions about the relative impacts of construction activities. However,

urban storm water runoff is identified as a major source of impairment, and sediment is identified as a major pollutant (# 1 for rivers and streams nationwide # 3 for lakes). EPA undertook a very comprehensive analysis of storm water sources, proposed remedies, costs and benefits prior to promulgation of the Phase II regulations. Much data and many literature reviews supporting the need for permitting are available on EPA's website. 1079 10 260 It would be additional regulations that in my opinion would be a burden to the industry with very little or no real impact on the environments in question. The reason that I can say this is if you look at the number of wells drilled in the last few years in Pennsylvania and the total number of Erosion and Sediment violations for all those wells they might only number a couple of hundred violations total for the industry. Of all of these I would bet only about forty would be considered truly harmful to the environment. I would say that if these are true and I do believe these type of numbers to be accurate estimates from what have been told by PA DEP and others then that the change would virtually have no real impact on the environments that we drill in. EPA has already announced the intention to take an additional two years to decide specifically what, if any, regulatory controls are necessary for small ( less than 5 acres) oil and gas construction sites. Please note that this does not apply in the State of Pennsylvania because the State issues it's own NPDES permits. 1021 3 Environmental Impacts Comment Response New Topic Summ. ID Summary Response DocumentID 10 261 Besides, we [ Oil and Gas Industry] already prepare and implement Erosion and Sedimentation Plans for the drilling of our wells. We adhere by our plans because it is in our best interest to keep our rig road and well locations as dry as possible during wet weather to minimize costs associated with operating heavy equipment in muddy conditions. It only takes three or four days to drill a well and, weather permitting, our roads and locations are recontoured close to the original topography, then re seeded, within several months, or as soon as the appropriate equipment can be scheduled to do so. For all these reasons, I can't imagine that an additional permitting burden will provide any incremental environmental benefit. See response to comment 304 1013 10 262 It is not necessary or scientifically justified for EPA to impose controls by regulation because appropriate controls are already at use in the industry [ O& G] as a matter of necessity and prudent practice. See response to comment 304 1061 10 263 Oil and gas grading, clearing, and excavating activities are scientifically different from conventional construction activities, in that the scope and extent of oil and gas activities are noncontiguous, contingent on geological and market factors, often located in remote places, and characterized as a matter of technical necessity and industry practice by temporary,

permeable, low impact development ( LID) practices.

LID practices are widely used in oil and gas development. For example, porous pavement ( e. g.,

gravel) is used widely in oil and gas site development where erosion control is required on the surface. EPA applauds the use of Low Impact Development practices by the oil and gas industry. EPA agrees that practices promoting the infiltration of uncontaminated storm water are definitely preferable to those that promote collection and discharge of storm water. However, EPA notes that these are post construction storm water management practices, not construction storm water management practices.

EPA believes that any type of construction that includes bare soil, even for just a few weeks, is not intrinsically different from any other type of construction activity with respect to the potential for water quality impacts. Scientifcally speaking, bare soil and rain are the only parameters necessary for erosion to occur; market factors, location, and contiguousness do not alter this conclusion.

EPA has already announced it's intention to take an additional two years to decide specifically what, if any, regulatory controls are necessary for small ( less than 5 acres) oil and gas construction sites. See also, response to comment 304. 1061 4