L CAS Number 1763 23 1, 29081 56 9, 70225 14 8, 2795 39 3,29457 72 5 l3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 1 Voluntary Use and Exposure Information Profile Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid and Various Salt Forms I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION Chemical Name: CAS Number: Perfluorooctane Sulfonates Various, including: 1763 23 1 (acid) 2908 l 56 9 (ammonium salt) 70225 14 8 (DEA salt) 2795 39 3 (K salt) 29457 72 5 (Li Salt)

The perfluorooctane sulfonate anion (PFOS) has no specific CAS number. The listed salts summarize the designated Tier I perfluorochemicals that are all considered perfluorooctane sulfonates.

II. COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Company Name: 3M Site Locations: 1) 10746 Innovation Road Cottage Grove, MN 55016 2) 1400 State Docks Road Decatur, AL 35601 Technical Contact: W. A. Weppner Phone: 65 l/ 733 6374 Address: 3M Center, Building 236 lB 10 St. Paul. MN 55 144 III. ON SITE ACTIVITIES #CAS iI&& (1997) Imported 1763 23 1 29081 56 9 70225 14 8 2795 39 3" 29457 72 5 Less Than 200,000 lb/ yr.

Estimate the amount of subject chemical distributed off site:

95% of manufacture/ import *Submitted in 1998 TSCA IUR additional information.

3 CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 2 Narrative Description and Process Flow Schematic:

3M Company utilizes a process known as Simons Electra Chemical Fluorination (ECF) to synthesize organofluorine molecules. In this process, organic feedstocks are dispersed in liquid, anhydrous hydrogen fluoride, and an electric current is passed through the solution, causing the hydrogen atoms on the molecule to be replaced with fluorine. The predominant components of the products created by this process have the same carbon skeletal arrangement as the feedstock used, but with all of the hydrogen atoms replaced by fluorine. However, fragmentation and rearrangement of the carbon skeleton can also occur and significant amounts of cleaved, branched and cyclic structures may be formed. The degree of fluorination of the organic feedstock is also dependent upon the specific carbon chain length of the feedstock and parameters of the ECF process such as electrical current and the length of time the process is run. It is possible to synthesize fully fluorinated or perfluoroorganic molecules where all of the hydrogen atoms of the hydrocarbon feedstock have been replaced by fluorine atoms. Using these perfluoroorganic molecules as basic building blocks, unique chemistries can be created by further reactions with functionalized hydrocarbon molecules.

3M has produced sulfonyl based fluorochemicals commercially for over 40 years using the ECF process. A basic building block of such products and the highest production volume fluorochemical 3M manufactures is perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride (POSF). The starting feedstock for this reaction is 1 octanesulfonyl fluoride. (Reaction 1)

Reaction 1 CsH, S02F + 17 HF Energy  > CsFi7S02F + 17 HZ 1 Octanesulfonyl fluoride ECF Perfluorooctanesulfonyl fluoride The electrochemical fluorination process yields about 35% 40% straight chain (normal) POSF, and a mixture of biproducts and waste of unknown and variable composition comprised of the following:

higher and lower straight chain homologs, i. e., n CnFzn+ iS02F, e. g., GFiS02F, C7F1$ 02F, C9F1$ S02F which comprise about 7% of the process output 2) branched chain, perfluoroalkylsulfonyl fluorides with various chain lengths, about 18 20% of the output 3) straight chain, branched, and cyclic (non functional) perfluoroalkanes and ethers, which comprise about 20 25% of the output 4) "tars" (high molecular weight fluorochemical byproducts) and other byproducts, including molecular hydrogen, which comprise about lo 15% of the output.

Because of slight differences in process conditions, raw materials, and equipment, the mixture produced by the electrochemical fluorination process varies somewhat from lot to lot and from plantto plant. The product that results from electrochemical fluorination is thus not a pure chemical but rather a mix of isomers and homologues. The commercialized POSF derived products are a mixture of approximately 70% linear POSF derivatives and 30% branched POSF derived impurities.

4 CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9,70225 14 S, 2795 39 3,29457 72 5 l3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 3 During production, byproducts and waste products are formed. The volatile waste products, such as perfluoromethane, have been vented to the atmosphere in the past, but improvements are underway to capture and destroy these releases by thermal oxidation. The tars are incinerated at an in house, hazardous waste incinerator. The byproducts, many of which are incompletely fluorinated with hydrogen atoms still present, can be recycled back into the ECF process or are partially degraded in stabilization processes, and discharged to controlled, in house, wastewater treatment systems. The treatment sludge is either landfilled or land incorporated, Some of the non POSF byproducts are recovered and sold for secondary uses.

POSF is itself a commercially viable product, but is primarily an important intermediate in the synthesis of substances used in many other 3M fluorochemical products. The majority is used to produce functionally derivatized fluorochemicals and high molecular weight polymeric products.

The perfluorooctane sulfonic acid manufactured by hydrolyzing POSF intermediates to the sulfonic acid. The various salts of perfluorooctane sulfonate are manufactured by base neutralization of the acid to the appropriate salt in a batch reaction.

The following block flow diagram describes the process discussed above.

BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM FOR PERFLUOROSULFONIC ACID AND ITS SALTS Electra Chemical Fluorination Cells (Octanesulfonyl fluoride + HF + electrical energy)

Perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride Secondary Reactors Hydrolysis & Base Neutralization Functionally Derivatized Fluorochemicals Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and various salt forms CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3, 29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 4 IV. SITE RELEASE AND TRANSFER INFORMATION FOR TRI CHEMICALS Not Applicable  Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its salts are not listed on TRI.

V. SITE RELEASE AND TRANSFER INFORMATION FOR NON TRI CHEMICALS A. ON SITE AIR RELEASES FROM DECATUR, AL AND COTTAGE GROVE, MN Estimated Total Annual Releases (lbs. 1997) Estimated % Accuracy of Estimate (optional) #days/ years release occurs Fugitive (non point) Negligible, Not quantified Stack (point) 0 Comments:

Physical chemical property information and industrial hygiene monitoring support that PFOS salts would not be in the form of volatile air emissions. Some industrial hygiene testing at Cottage Grove, MN has shown the presence of PFOS in work areas, however the industrial hygiene personnel have indicated that this material is believed to be in the form of dried particulate dust. Although dispersed PFOS has been detected in the work area, the concentrations do not indicate significant contributions to annual site air emissions.

Industrial hygiene data for PFOS salts has not been generated in Decatur, AL because they are in a liquid slurry versus particle form.

Fugitive air emissions testing for the Decatur wastewater treatment system was conducted in late 1999. Results are still under review and no final report is available. However, no PFOS was detected in air samples.

B. WATER RELEASES FROM SITE Estimated Total Annual Releases (lbs. 1997) Estimated % Accuracy of Estimate (optional)

Water releases: 10,000 Number of days/ year release occurs: (See comments below)

Receiving Water Name: Baker's Creek at the junction with the Tennessee River NPDES Number: ALD004023 164 . CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 70225 14 8, 2795 39 3,29457 72 5 /3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 5 Comments:

Although manufacturing of the salts listed on this form is associated with less than 10 wastewater discharges per year, the hydrolysis of other sulfonated compounds to PFOS in the wastewater treatment system result in an ongoing discharge of the PFOS compounds. The calculated discharge amount therefore is not attributed to just the salt production. A percentage of the discharges are from the PFOS salt manufacturing. There is not data to distinguish between PFOS discharge from PFOS salt manufacturing versus hydrolysis of other sulfonated compounds manufactured at this site to PFOS.

PFOS in wastewater discharge is not measured as specific salt compounds, but instead reflects the total amount of dissociated salts and compounds that hydrolyze to perfluorooctane sulfonate.

COTTAGE GROVE, MN Estimated Total Annual Releases (lbs. 1997) Estimated % Accuracy of Estimate (optional)

Water releases: 1000 Number of days/ year release occurs: 11 times per year Receiving Water Name: Mississippi NPDES Number: MN0000 1449 Comments: The discharge amount is based upon `per batch estimates of releases'. Removal of the PFOS to the sludge from the Cottage Grove, MN wastewater system was calculated based upon the measured removal of PFOS from wastewater in the clarifiers at Decatur, AL.

C. ON SITE LAND RELEASES DECATUR, AL Estimated Total Annual Releases (lbs. 1997) Estimated % Accuracy of Estimate (optional)

Landfill 0 Land Treatment/ Land Amendment 40,000 Surface Impoundments Not quantified Underground Injection 0 Other (specify): CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9,70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 /3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 6 Comments:

In 1997, land amended sludges were held in an impoundment until weather permitted application to the field. The impoundment is no longer used as part of the normal wastewater treatment operation except during equipment downtime. A percentage of the PFOS land treatment is from the PFOS salt manufacturing. There is not data to distinguish between PFOS land treatment from PFOS salt manufacturing versus hydrolysis of other sulfonated compounds manufactured at this site for PFOS.

The land treatment of Decatur sludge was discontinued in early 1998. Sludge now is transported to an offsite landfills, after passing through a thickener and a sludge press.

Estimated PFOS levels in the sludge are based upon the reduction of PFOS in the wastewater stream as it passes through the clarifiers at the site. The PFOS levels in the sludge have been reduced by changes in the amount of materials being discharged to the sewer. Wastewater data from 1999 show that PFOS levels in the sludge were less than 20,000 pounds per year.

COTTAGE GROVE, MN Estimated Total Annual Releases (lbs. 1997) Estimated % Accuracy of Estimate (optional)

Landfill Land Treatment/ Land Amendment Surface Impoundments Underground Injection Other (specify):

Comments: Sludge from the Cottage Grove facility is sent to an off site industrial landfill.

D. OFF SITE TRANSFERS  Decatur, AL and Cottage Grove, MN (1997)

Dl. Transfer to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)

Number of days/ year the release occurs: Not applicable  waste is not sent to a POTW Annual Transfer (lb): 0 Estimated % Accuracy of Transfer Estimate (optional) (%):

POTW Name: Not Applicable Street Address: Not Applicable City: Not Applicable Country: Not Applicable State: Not Applicable Zip Code: Not Applicable NPDES Number: Not Applicable Comments: CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9,70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 D2. TRANSFERS TO OTHER OFF SITE LOCATIONS DECATUR, AL Estimated Total Estimated % Annual Releases Accuracy of (lbs. 1997) Estimate (optional)

Incineration: Not applicable Wastewater Treatment (Excluding POTW) Not applicable Underground Injection Not applicable Hazardous Waste (RCRA Subtitle C) landfill Not applicable Other Landfill Not applicable Recycle or Recovery Not applicable Unknown or Other Comments:

COTTAGE GROVE, MN Estimated Total Annual Releases (lbs. 1997) Estimated % Accuracy of Estimate (optional)

Incineration: 0  See comment Wastewater Treatment (Excluding POTW) Not applicable Underground Injection Not applicable Hazardous Waste (RCRA Subtitle C) landfill Not applicable Other Landfill 7400 Recycle or Recovery Not applicable Unknown or Other Comments: Cottage Grove facility utilizes incineration for all their drummed wastes. Waste summary does not show any drummed PFOS salt wastes in 1997.

Sludge from the Cottage Grove facility is sent to an industrial landfill. CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 l3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 VI. ON SITE WORKPLACE EXPOSURE CAS Number: 2795 39 3 Company: 3M Comnanv, Snecialtv Materials Manufacturing; Division, Cottage Grove, MN (uotassium nerfluorooctane sulfonatel This information will assist EPA in characterizing the number of workers potentially exposed and the magnitude, frequency, and duration of potential exposure. When providing monitoring data, ensure that data is linked with worker activities described in question 2.

1. Estimate the number of workers potentially exposed routinely to the subject chemical for each of the exposure duration times. If a worker is involved in more than one activity, enter only his/ her most typical activity in the table. Don't count a worker more than once. The total number in the table should equal the total number of workers potentially exposed.

Hours/ Day c. 25 .25 l l 8 >8 <lo 1 2 6 Days/ Year 10 100 loo 250 23 23 >250 2 . Describe the routine worker activities to which the workers in question 1 are exposed: sampling, removal of filter cake, and drumming of liquids, manufacture an article, etc. For these activities, describe the physical state of the subject chemical (liquid, gas, particulate, or aerosol, etc.) and, if in a mixture, the chemical's concentration:

The chemical (2795 39 3) is a light, free flowing powder. Initially, the material is a wet slurry (within a reactor) and is then transferred to drying equipment for final processing and packaging. The above employees operate and maintain the drying equipment, collect quality samples, and also package (by gravity or by hand scooping) dry powder from the spray equipment into drums, pails, and cans. CAS Number 1763 23 1, 29081 56 9, 7022514 8,2795 39 3, 29457 72 5 /3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 9 3. Provide industrial hygiene monitoring data, if available, with a brief description of the sampling method and exposure scenario monitored, e. g., describe the specific worker activities performed by the individuals monitored. For privacy considerations, please do not include any personal identifiers such as a worker's name or social security number with any data submitted to EPA.

These samples were collected during operation of drying equipment and packaging activities. Past sample collection and analysis has utilized 37 mm Nucleopore filter cassettes with either gravimetric, inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy (for K+), or liquid chromatography analysis. The current method is an OSHA Versatile Sampler (OVS) tube analyzed by liquid chromatography/ mass spectrometry. Wipe sample data for the chemical does exist and has indicated significant levels of this material on surfaces in the production area. The results were used for focusing decontamination and exposure control efforts.

Area/ Job Classification Production Unit: Chemical Process Operator Pilot Plant: Technician Sample TYPe # of Samples Minimum Maximum Concentration Concentration Geometric Mean Geometric Standard Deviation Partial Shift (Sample Time Range: 7 125 minutes) 1 0 0.00013 40 mg/ m3 0.050 mg/ m3 64.407 mglm3 Partial Shift (Sample Time: 7 0 minutes) 1 0.45 mglm3 0.45 mglm3 NA NA 4. Briefly describe the engineering controls used to minimize exposure to this chemical:

The drying and packaging activities are contained within small room enclosures with negative pressure and filtered exhaust ventilation. Local exhaust may be present directly at the point of packaging.

5. Briefly list the personal protective equipment your workers regularly wear to prevent exposure of this chemical:

Employees working within the above small room enclosures use airline respirators, chemical protective coveralls (Tyvek), boot covers, and gloves.

Comments: (This section is available to clarify the responses given. Attach additional pages if desired.) .

I CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9, 70225 14 8, 2795 39 3, 29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 10 CAS Number: 1763 23 1 Company: 3M Comuanv, Snecialtv Material Manufacturing Division, Cottage Grove, MN Chemical Name CAS No. Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 1763 23 1 This information will assist EPA in characterizing the number of workers potentially exposed and the magnitude, frequency, and duration of potential exposure. When providing monitoring data, ensure that data is linked with worker activities described in question 2.

1. Estimate the number of workers potentially exposed routinely to the subject chemical for each of the exposure duration times. If a worker is involved in more than one activity, enter only his/ her most typical activity in the table. Don't count a worker more than once. The total number in the table should equal the total number of workers potentially exposed.

Hours/ Day c. 25 .25 l l 8 >8 <lo DaysNear 10 100 100 250 6 1 2 >250 2. Describe the routine worker activities to which the workers in question 1 are exposed: sampling, removal of filter cake, and drumming of liquids, manufacture an article, etc. For these activities, describe the physical state of the subject chemical (liquid, gas, particulate, or aerosol, etc.) and, if in a mixture, the chemical's concentration:

The chemical formulation containing 1763 23 1 is a clear colorless liquid solution (32 38% concentration). Employee activities include operation and maintenance of process equipment, product quality sampling and drumming as an intermediate or final product liquid solution containing 1763 23 1.

3. Provide industrial hygiene monitoring data, if available, with a brief describe the specific worker activities performed by the individuals monitored. For privacy considerations, please do not include any personal identifiers such as a worker's name or social security number with any data submitted to EPA.

No data available.

4. Briefly describe the engineering controls used to minimize exposure to this chemical:

Local exhaust ventilation used at product container openings during container filling. CAS Number 1763 23 l) 2908 l 56 9,70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 I 3M Company I 4/ 27/ 2000 11 5. Briefly list the personal protective equipment your workers regularly wear to prevent exposure of this chemical:

Employees wear PVC jackets and pants, neoprene gloves, and face shield and chemical splash goggles for containerization of solutions containing 1763 23 l.

Comments: (This section is available to clarify the responses given. Attach additional pages if desired.)

/3 CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 12 CAS Number: 70225 14 g Company: 3M Companv. Suecialtv Materials Manufacturinrr Division, Cottage Grove. MN Chemical Name Diethanolamine salt of perfluorooctane sulfonate CAS No. 70225 14 g This information will assist EPA in characterizing the number of workers potentially exposed and the magnitude, frequency, and duration of potential exposure. When providing monitoring data, ensure that data is linked with worker activities described in question 2.

1. Estimate the number of workers potentially exposed routinely to the subject chemical for each of the exposure duration times. If a worker is involved in more than one activity, enter only his/ her most typical activity in the table. Don't count a worker more than once. The total number in the table should equal the total number of workers potentially exposed.

Hours/ Day c. 25 .25 l l 8 >8 <lo 2 4 Days/ Year 10 100 loo 250 >250 2 . Describe the routine worker activities to which the workers in question 1 are exposed: sampling, removal of filter cake, and drumming of liquids, manufacture an article, etc. For these activities, describe the physical state of the subject chemical (liquid, gas, particulate, or aerosol, etc.) and, if in a mixture, the chemical's concentration:

The chemical (70225 14 g) is a clear, light colored solution containing 19 23% 70225 14 g. Employee activities include operation and maintenance of process equipment, product quality sampling and drumming of final liquid solution containing 70225 14 g.

3 . Provide industrial hygiene monitoring data, if available, with a brief description of the sampling method and exposure scenario monitored, e. g., describe the specific worker activities performed by the individuals monitored. For privacy considerations, please do not include any personal identifiers such as a worker's name or social security number with any data submitted to EPA.

No data available.

4 . Briefly describe the engineering controls used to minimize exposure to this chemical:

Local exhaust ventilation used at product container openings during packaging. CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 13 5. Briefly list the personal protective equipment your workers regularly wear to prevent exposure of this chemical:

Employees wear PVC gloves and chemical splash goggles for containerization of product.

Comments: (This section is available to clarify the responses given. Attach additional pages if desired.) CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 14 CAS Number: 29081 56 g Company: 3M Comuanv. Snecialtv Materials Manufacturing Division, Cottage Grove, MN Chemical Name Ammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate CAS No. 29081 56 9 This information will assist EPA in characterizing the number of workers potentially exposed and the magnitude, frequency, and duration of potential exposure. When providing monitoring data, ensure that data is linked with worker activities described in question 2.

1. Estimate the number of workers potentially exposed routinely to the subject chemical for each of the exposure duration times. If a worker is involved in more than one activity, enter only his/ her most typical activity in the table. Don't count a worker more than once. The total number in the table should equal the total number of workers potentially exposed.

Hours/ Day <lo Days/ Year 10 100 loo 250 >250 c. 25 .25 l 1 2 1 8 1 2 >8 2 . Describe the routine worker activities to which the workers in question 1 are exposed: sampling, removal of filter cake, and drumming of liquids, manufacture an article, etc. For these activities, describe the physical state of the subject chemical (liquid, gas, particulate, or aerosol, etc.) and, if in a mixture, the chemical's concentration:

The chemical formulation containing 2908 l 56 9 is a clear amber solution (19 23% concentration). Employee activities include transferring wet slurry to filter press, operating filter press, transferring filter cake to reactor, and drumming final liquid solution containing 2908 l 56 9. The above employees also operate and maintain process equipment and collect quality samples.

3 . Provide industrial hygiene monitoring data, if available, with a brief description of the sampling method and exposure scenario monitored, e. g., describe the specific worker activities performed by the individuals monitored. For privacy considerations, please do not include any personal identifiers such as a worker's name or social security number with any data submitted to EPA.

No data available.

4 . Briefly describe the engineering controls used to minimize exposure to this chemical:

Local exhaust available at the filter press, at the reactor opening and at the product container openings. CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 15 5. Briefly list the personal protective equipment your workers regularly wear to prevent exposure of this chemical:

Employees wear PVC jackets and pants, neoprene gloves, and chemical splash goggles. Half mask dust mist respirators are used for handling of wet filter cake.

Comments: (This section is available to clarify the responses given. Attach additional pages if desired.)

/7 CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 16 CAS Number: 29457 72 5 Company: 3M Comnanv. Snecialtv Materials Manufacturinc! Division, Cottage Grove, MN Chemical Name Lithium perfluorooctane sulfonate CAS No. 29457 72 5 This information will assist EPA in characterizing the number of workers potentially exposed and the magnitude, frequency, and duration of potential exposure. When providing monitoring data, ensure that data is linked with worker activities described in question 2.

1. Estimate the number of workers potentially exposed routinely to the subject chemical for each of the exposure duration times. If a worker is involved in more than one activity, enter only his/ her most typical activity in the table. Don't count a worker more than once. The total number in the table should equal the total number of workers potentially exposed.

Hours/ Day c. 25 .25 l <lo 1 2 Days/ Year 10 100 loo 250 ~250 l 8 6 >8 2 . Describe the routine worker activities to which the workers in question 1 are exposed: sampling, removal of filter cake, and drumming of liquids, manufacture an article, etc. For these activities, describe the physical state of the subject chemical (liquid, gas, particulate, or aerosol, etc.) and, if in a mixture, the chemical's concentration:

The chemical formulation containing 29457 72 5 is a clear amber solution (24 26% concentration). Employee activities include operation and maintenance of process equipment, product quality sampling and drumming of final liquid solution containing 29457 72 5.

3 . Provide industrial hygiene monitoring data, if available, with a brief description of the sampling method and exposure scenario monitored, e. g., describe the specific worker activities performed by the individuals monitored. For privacy considerations, please do not include any personal identifiers such as a worker's name or social security number with any data submitted to EPA.

No data available.

4 . Briefly describe the engineering controls used to minimize exposure to this chemical:

Local exhaust ventilation used at product container openings during packaging. CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 l3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 17 5 . Briefly list the personal protective equipment your workers regularly wear to prevent exposure of this chemical:

Employees wear PVC jackets, neoprene gloves, and chemical splash goggles for containerization of product.

Comments: (This section is available to clarify the responses given. Attach additional pages if desired.) CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 18 CAS Number: 2795 39 3 Company: 3M Companv, Suecialtv Materials Manufacturinrz Division, Decatur, AL Chemical Name CAS No. Potassium perfluorooctane sulfonate 2795 39 3 This information will assist EPA in characterizing the number of workers potentially exposed and the magnitude, frequency, and duration of potential exposure. When providing monitoring data, ensure that data is linked with worker activities described in question 2.

1. Estimate the number of workers potentially exposed routinely to the subject chemical for each of the exposure duration times. If a worker is involved in more than one activity, enter only his/ her most typical activity in the table. Don't count a worker more than once. The total number in the table should equal the total number of workers potentially exposed.

Hours/ Day <lo Days/ Year 10 100 loo 250 ~250 c. 25 .25 l 2 4 l 8 X 3 2 . Describe the routine worker activities to which the workers in question 1 are exposed: sampling, removal of filter cake, and drumming of liquids, manufacture an article, etc. For these activities, describe the physical state of the subject chemical (liquid, gas, particulate, or aerosol, etc.) and, if in a mixture, the chemical's concentration:

The chemical (2795 39 3) is in an aqueous solution (25%). Employees operate and maintain the production equipment and collect quality samples. Material is produced, stored, and metered into product container in a closed system 3. Provide industrial hygiene monitoring data, if available, with a brief description of the sampling method and exposure scenario monitored, e. g., describe the specific worker activities performed by the individuals monitored. For privacy considerations, please do not include any personal identifiers such as a worker's name or social security number with any data submitted to EPA.

No data available.

4 . Briefly describe the engineering controls used to minimize exposure to this chemical:

Enclosed process. CAS Number 1763 23 l) 2908 l 56 9,70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 19 5 . Briefly list the personal protective equipment your workers regularly wear to prevent exposure of this chemical:

Employees use safety glasses and neoprene gloves.

Comments: (This section is available to clarify the responses given. Attach additional pages if desired.) CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 I 3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 20 CAS Number: 1763 23 1,29081 56 9,29457 72 5, 70225 14 8 Company: 3M  Decatur, AL Chemical Name Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid Ammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate Lithium perfluorooctane sulfonate Diethanolamine salt of perfluorooctane sulfonate CAS No. 1763 23 1 29081 56 9 29457 72 5 70225 14 8 None of these materials are manufactured at 3M Decatur. CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 / 3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 21 VII. CHEMICAL END USES A. END USE AS AN INTERMEDIATE CONSUMED TO MARE OTHER CHEMICALS Al. On Site Use as a Intermediate:

CAS #1763 23 l Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid is used as an intermediate while the salts are not used as intermediates. The perfluorooctane sulfonate salts are only used as finished products.

Product chemical class or product chemical (Include CAS number if appropriate) % of total* volume of subject chemical manufactured or imported 1. Fluorochemical trivalent chromium compound l 5 2 . Perfluorooctane sulfonate salt l 5 *As reported in Part III, p. 2 A2. Off Site Use as an Intermediate:

Product chemical class or product chemical (Include CAS number if appropriate) % of total volume of subject chemical manufactured or imported*

1. Not Applicable Not Applicable *As reported in Part III, p. 2 CAS Number 1763 23 1, 29081 56 9,70225 14 8,2795 39 3, 29457 72 5 /3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 22 B. END USES OTHER THAN AS A CONSUMED INTERMEDIATE The following two tables present a summary of the information contained in VI1. B regarding uses of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its salt forms.

Table 1 details the end applications in which a particular CAS Number is used. For each CAS Number, the % used in each application totals to 100%.

Table 1. CAS Number by Application CAS NUMBER APPLICATION 2795 39 3 1. Film former in Fire Fighting Foams 2. Mist suppressant for a& d baths in metal plating factories 3 . Surfactant in acid etching processes for production of circuit boards 29457 72 5 1. Surfactant in alkaline cleaners 2 . Emulsifier in commercial floor polish 3 . Mist suppressant for acid baths in metal plating factories 4 . Surfactant in acid etching processes for production of circuit boards I 5 . Registered active ingredient for insect control. Used in formulations used in bait traps 70225 14 8 1. Emulsifier in commercial floor polishes 29081 56 9 1763 23 1 2 . Mist suppressant for acid baths in metal plating factories 3 . Surfactant in acid etching processes for production of circuit boards 1. Surfactant in acid etching processes for production of circuit boards No commercial products Table 2 details the multiple CAS Numbers which may be used in any one application.

Table 2. Application by CAS Number CAS NUMBER 2795 39 3 2795 39 3 29457 72 5 70225 14 8 2795 39 3 29457 72 5 70225 14 8 29081 56 9 29457 72 5 70225 14 8 29457 72 5 29457 72 5 APPLICATION Film former in Fire Fighting Foams Mist suppressant for acid baths in metal plating factories Surfactant in acid etching processes for production of circuit boards Emulsifier in commercial floor polishes Surfactant in alkaline cleaners Registered active ingredient for insect control. Used in formulations used in bait traps 1763 23 1 No commercial products I CAS Number 1763 23 1, 29081 569,70225 14 8, 2795 39 3, 29457 72 5 /3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 23 CAS Number 2795 39 3, Potassium perfluorooctane sulfonate Use Number 1 of 3 Description of Chemical End Use: Chemical used as film former which is blended into tire fighting foams. These products are designed for primary use by fire fighting professionals.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Check all physical forms of the Volume going to this use: 92 f 2 chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

1<, ~1% (600 1200 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor & Liquid solution Other (Explain)

Use Number 2 of 3 Description of Chemical End Use: Metal plating factories use this chemical to suppress oxidizing acid mist in order to protect their workers' health.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Volume going to this use: 6 f 2 Check all physical forms of the chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

X  <I% (1000 ppm) 1 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor & Liquid solution Other (Explain) CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 l3M Company / 4/ 27/ 2000 24 Use Number 3 of 3 Description of Chemical End Use: Electronic factories add this chemical as a surfactant to improve the wetting of strong acids used in the etching of precise patterns in a silicon water or a printed circuit board.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Volume going to this use: 2 f 0.5 Check all physical forms of the chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

J <l% (< lo00 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor X  Liquid solution Other (Explain) CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 /3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 25 CAS Number 29457 72 5, Lithium perfluorooctane sulfonate Use Number 1 of 5 Description of Chemical End Use: Chemical formulators use this chemical as a surfactant to improve the wetting of water based products that are sold as alkaline cleaners. These cleaners are then diluted and sold to the consumer or contract cleaner.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Volume going to this use: 23.5 f 0.5 Check all physical forms of the chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

J <l% (30 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor 1(, Liquid solution Other (Explain)

Use Number 2 of 5 Description of Chemical End Use: Metal plating factories use this chemical as a surfactant to suppress oxidizing acid mist in order to protect their workers' health.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Volume* going to this use: 1 f 1 Check all physical forms of the chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

J <l% (30 50 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor L Liquid solution Other (Explain) CAS Number 1763 23 1,2908 l 56 9, 7022514 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 I 3M Company I 4/ 27/ 2000 26 Use Number 3 of 5 Description of Chemical End Use: Electronics factories add this chemical as a surfactant to improve the wetting of strong acids used in the etching of precise patterns in a silicon water or a printed circuit board.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Volume going to this use: 1. f 1 Check all physical forms of the chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

J cl% (30 50 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor 1(, Liquid solution Other (Explain)

Use Number 4 of 5 Description of Chemical End Use: Chemical formulators use this chemical as a surfactant to improve the wetting of water based products that are sold as commercial floor polishes.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Volume going to this use: 23.5 * 0.5 Check all physical forms of the chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

_35_ <l% (15 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor 1(, Liquid solution Other (Explain) .'  ! I CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9,70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 /3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 27 Use Number 5 of 5 Description of Chemical End Use: Chemical formulators use this chemical as a registered active ingredient for insect control. It is blended with bait that is attractive to insects and placed in bait stations. Either commercial facilities or consumers can use these bait stations.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Check all physical forms of the Volume going to this use: 53 f 0.5 chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

X cl%

l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent wet solid Gas or vapor 1(, Liquid solution Other (Explain) CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 9,70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 l3M Company !4/ 27/ 2000 28 CAS Number 29081 56 9, Ammonium perfluorooctane sulfonate Use Number 1 of 1 Description of Chemical End Use: Electronics factories add this chemical as a surfactant to improve the setting of strong acids used in the etching of precise patterns in a silicon wafer or a printed circuit board.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Check all physical forms of the Volume going to this use: 100 chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

z <l% ( 100 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor X  Liquid solution Other (Explain)

3 0 CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 70225 14 8,2795 39 3,29457 72 5 l3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 29 CAS Number 70225 14 8, Diethanol amine perfluorooctane sulfonate Use Number 1 of 3 Description of Chemical End Use: Chemical formulators use this chemical as a surfactant to improve the emulsification of materials used in commercial and consumer floor polishes.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Check all physical forms of the Volume going to this use: 35 i 2 chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

& cl% ( 15 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor z Liquid solution Other (Explain)

Use Number 2 of 3 Description of Chemical End Use: Metal plating factories use this chemical to suppress oxidizing acid mist in order to protect their workers' health.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Volume going to this use: 48.5 h 1 Check all physical forms of the chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

_1c_ <l% ( 100 1000 ppm) l 30% _IL. 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent wet solid Gas or vapor Liquid solution Other (Explain) CAS Number 1763 23 1,29081 56 g, 70225 14 8, 2795 39 3, 29457 72 5 l3M Company /4/ 27/ 2000 30 Use Number 3 of 3 Description of Chemical End Use: Electronic factories add this chemical as a surfactant to improve the wetting of strong acids used in the etching of precise patterns in a silicon water or a printed circuit board.

Percent of total manufactured or imported Check all physical forms of the Volume going to this use: 16.5 f 2 chemical during this use:

If used in a mixture check appropriate box To indicate Weight fraction. Average Values are acceptable:

J cl% ( 100 1000 ppm) l 30% 30 60% 60 90% >90% Aerosol Dry Powder Pellets or large crystals Water or solvent  wet solid Gas or vapor 2i, Liquid solution Other (Explain)


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79060-79061]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31684]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63532; File No. SR-NYSE-2010-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, by New York Stock Exchange LLC
in Connection with the Proposal of NYSE Euronext to Eliminate the
Requirement of an 80% Supermajority Vote to Amend or Repeal Section 3.1
of its Bylaws

December 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 30, 2010, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On December 3, 2010, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is submitting this rule filing in connection with the
proposal of its ultimate parent, NYSE Euronext (the
``Corporation''),\4\ to amend its bylaws (the ``Bylaws'') to eliminate
the requirement that the affirmative vote of the holders of not less
than 80% of the votes entitled to be cast by the holders of the
outstanding capital stock of the Corporation entitled to vote generally
in the election of directors is necessary for the stockholders to amend
or repeal Article III, Section 3.1 of the Bylaws. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NYSE, a New York limited liability company, is an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE Euronext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is submitting this rule filing in connection with the
proposal of the Corporation, which is the ultimate parent company of
the Exchange, to amend its Bylaws to eliminate the requirement that the
affirmative vote of the holders of not less than 80% of the votes
entitled to be cast by the holders of the outstanding capital stock of
the Corporation entitled to vote generally in the election of directors
is necessary for the stockholders to amend or repeal Article III,
Section 3.1 of the Bylaws relating to the general powers of the Board
of Directors of the Corporation (``Board''). Section 3.1 also provides
that the number of Directors on the Board shall be fixed and changed
from time to time exclusively by the Board pursuant to a resolution
adopted by two-thirds of the directors then in office. Elimination of
this 80% ``supermajority'' voting provision as it relates to Section
3.1 will have the effect that only a majority of the same number of
votes entitled to be cast will be required to amend or repeal this
section of the Bylaws.
Background
    In connection with its 2010 Annual Meeting, the Corporation
received a stockholder proposal to eliminate the supermajority voting
requirements necessary to amend certain provisions of the Corporation's
certificate of incorporation (``Certificate'') and Bylaws. Following
receipt of that proposal, the Corporation began discussions with its
regulators regarding the possibility of amending its Certificate and
Bylaws to implement the proposal. While recognizing the interest of
stockholders in simple majority voting to amend these basic governing
documents, the Corporation was also cognizant of the fact that, at the
time of the merger between Euronext and NYSE Group that created the
Corporation, both European and U.S regulators were concerned about
insuring a balance of U.S. and European perspectives in the governance
of the newly formed entity. The regulators and the respective boards of
directors viewed the combination of Euronext and NYSE Group as a
``merger of equals,'' and balanced representation between American and
European representatives on the Board was the primary means by which
the principle of equality was to be implemented. The regulatory
authorities approved supermajority voting to amend the governance
provisions in the Certificate and Bylaws considered to be most
important in maintaining this balance.
    Following further discussions between the Corporation and its
regulators, the regulators have indicated that they would not oppose a
change to a simple majority provision for certain of the provisions
currently subject to an 80% voting requirement, including Article III,
Section 3.1 of the Bylaws. Section 3.1 reads as follows:
    ``General Powers. The business and affairs of the Corporation shall
be managed by or under the direction of the Board of Directors. The
number of directors on the Board of Directors shall be fixed and
changed from time to time exclusively by the Board of Directors
pursuant to a resolution adopted by two-thirds of the directors then in
office. In addition to the powers and authorities expressly conferred
upon them by these Bylaws, the Board of Directors may exercise all such
powers of the Corporation and do all such lawful acts and things as are
not by statute or by the Certificate of Incorporation or by these
Bylaws required to be exercised or done by the stockholders. A director
need not be a stockholder.''
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to implement the
decision of the Board to remove the 80% supermajority voting
requirement with respect to the aforementioned Bylaw provision.

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \5\ of the
Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \6\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. More specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will permit the Corporation to respond to the
stockholder proposal submitted to it while also ensuring ongoing
regulatory comfort concerning balanced representation in the governance
of the Corporation which will thereby contribute to perfecting the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2010-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2010-77. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.
    Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2010-77 and should be submitted on
or before January 7, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31684 Filed 12-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 66164]
[DOCID:fr27no07-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 349-134 and 2407-121]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Availability Of Environmental
Assessment

November 19, 2007.
    An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review.
The EA was prepared for an application filed by Alabama Power Company
(licensee) on October 23, 2007, and supplemented on November 14, 2007,
requesting Commission approval for a drought-based temporary variance
to the Martin Project (FERC No. 349) rule curve and associated
temporarily modified minimum flows from the Thurlow development of the
Yates and Thurlow Project (FERC No. 2407). The projects are located on
the Tallapoosa River in the counties of Coosa, Elmore and Tallapoosa,
Alabama.
    The EA evaluates the environmental impacts that would result from
approving the licensee's temporary variance to the Martin Project rule
curve and associated minimum flow modification from the Thurlow
Development. The EA finds that approval of the application would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. A copy of the EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the

docket number (P-349) in the docket number field to access the
document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23039 Filed 11-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 231 (Thursday, December 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74649-74655]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0310; Amdt. No. 25-135]
RIN 2120-AJ72

Harmonization of Various Airworthiness Standards for Transport
Category Airplanes--Flight Rules

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations governing various
airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This action
harmonizes the requirements for takeoff

speeds, static lateral-directional stability, speed increase and
recovery characteristics, and the stall warning margin for the landing
configuration in icing conditions with the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) certification standards.

DATES: This amendment becomes effective January 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Don Stimson, Federal Aviation Administration,
Airplane & Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (425) 227-
1149, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Doug Anderson,
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional Counsel (ANM-
7), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2166; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations and minimum standards for the design and performance of
aircraft that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It
prescribes new safety standards for the design and operation of
transport category airplanes.

        List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Term                              Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VR...........................................  rotation speed.
V1...........................................  the maximum speed in the
                                                takeoff at which the
                                                pilot must take the
                                                first action (e.g.,
                                                apply brakes, reduce
                                                thrust, deploy speed
                                                brakes) to stop the
                                                airplane within the
                                                accelerate stop
                                                distance. V1 also means
                                                the minimum speed in the
                                                takeoff, following a
                                                failure of the critical
                                                engine at VEF, at which
                                                the pilot can continue
                                                the takeoff and achieve
                                                the required height
                                                above the takeoff
                                                surface within the
                                                takeoff distance.
V2...........................................  takeoff safety speed.
VEF..........................................  speed at which the
                                                critical engine is
                                                assumed to fail during
                                                takeoff.
VREF.........................................  reference landing speed.
VSW..........................................  speed at which the onset
                                                of natural or artificial
                                                stall warning occurs.
VSR..........................................  reference stall speed.
VSR1.........................................  reference stall speed in
                                                a specific
                                                configuration.
VLOF.........................................  lift-off speed.
VMU..........................................  minimum unstick speed.
VMC..........................................  minimum control speed
                                                with the critical engine
                                                inoperative.
VFE..........................................  maximum flap extended
                                                speed.
VLE..........................................  maximum landing gear
                                                extended speed.
VFC/MFC......................................  maximum speed for
                                                stability
                                                characteristics.
VMO/MMO......................................  maximum operating limit
                                                speed.
VDF/MDF......................................  demonstrated flight
                                                diving speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Acronym                             Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPA.........................................  Air Line Pilots
                                                Association.
ARAC.........................................  Aviation Rulemaking
                                                Advisory Committee.
EASA.........................................  European Aviation Safety
                                                Agency.
GAMA.........................................  General Aviation
                                                Manufacturers
                                                Association.
ICAO.........................................  International Civil
                                                Aviation Organization.
NPRM.........................................  Notice of Proposed
                                                Rulemaking.
RFA..........................................  Regulatory Flexibility
                                                Act.
SBREFA.......................................  Small Business Regulatory
                                                Enforcement Fairness
                                                Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of Final Rule

    This rulemaking harmonizes specific airworthiness certification
standards for transport category airplanes with those of the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Harmonizing these airworthiness
standards reduces certification costs to airplane manufacturers and
improves product performance and capability for operators while
increasing the level of safety.
    During certification, applicants for a type certificate must
determine at what speed a pilot begins rotating the airplane to the
liftoff pitch attitude during the takeoff roll. This speed
(VR) must be fast enough to provide a safe speed margin
between the resulting liftoff speed (VLOF) and the minimum
safe liftoff speed, also known as the minimum unstick speed
(VMU). This rule allows the speed margin between
VLOF and VMU to be reduced, and hence
VR to be reduced, for airplanes where the minimum value of
VMU is limited by the geometry of the airplane (i.e., ground
contact of the tail of the airframe with the runway when the airplane
is rotated to the takeoff pitch angle). Because the geometry of the
airplane provides protection against early or over-rotation beyond the
safe liftoff pitch attitude at or near VMU, VR
can be reduced without lowering the level of safety. Reducing
VR reduces the takeoff distance needed at the same weight or
allows a higher weight (e.g., capability to carry more payload or fuel)
at the same takeoff distance.
    The static lateral-directional stability requirements are amended
to reinstate the standards that existed prior to Amendment 25-72 that
treat the specific lateral and directional stability requirements as
separate entities.

    This final rule also adds a requirement that, when conducting the
sideslip tests required by Sec.  25.177(c), the sideslip angles
evaluated must include those resulting from applying at least one-half
of the available rudder control, but no more than 180 pounds of force.
For sideslip angles greater than those appropriate to the operation of
the airplane, up to the angle achieved using a full rudder control
input or a rudder control force of 180 pounds, this rule reduces the
range of speeds and power settings that must be evaluated. The reduced
scope of the evaluation will lower flight test safety risks as well as
harmonize and standardize current practices.
    The final rule adds requirements for minimum roll capability that a
transport category airplane must have and for airplane flight
characteristics following extension of speedbrakes at high speeds. The
new requirements are:
    (1) There must be adequate roll capability to assure a prompt
recovery from a lateral upset condition, and
    (2) Speedbrake extension at high speed must not result in an
excessive positive load factor when the pilot does not act to
counteract the effects of the extension.
    Extending the speedbrakes at high speed also must not cause--
    (a) Buffeting that would impair the pilot's ability to read the
instruments, or
    (b) A tendency for the airplane to pitch down, which could cause a
further increase in speed, unless the pitching moment is small.
    Lastly, this rule adds a requirement that the non-icing stall
warning requirements prescribing the speed at which stall warning must
begin (VSW) also apply to icing conditions when the airplane
is in the landing configuration.

Background

Harmonization

    Part 25 prescribes airworthiness standards for type certification
of transport category airplanes for products certificated in the United
States (U.S.). EASA Certification Specifications for Large Aeroplanes
(CS-25) prescribe the corresponding airworthiness standards for
products certificated in Europe. While part 25 and CS-25 are similar,
they differ in some areas.
    The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to
review existing regulations and recommend changes to eliminate
differences between part 25 and CS-25 performance and handling
characteristic standards by harmonizing to the higher standards. This
rule is a result of that harmonization effort.

Summary of the NPRM

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register on November 19, 2010 (75 FR 70854). The proposal
discussed changes to part 25 in four areas:
    1. Selection of the takeoff rotation speed,
    2. Static lateral-directional stability,
    3. Roll capability and extension of speedbrakes at high speeds, and
    4. Stall warning onset speed for the landing configuration in icing
conditions.
    Three of the four proposed changes respond to the ARAC
recommendations and EASA's actions in response to those
recommendations. The fourth, pertaining to the stall warning onset
speed for the landing configuration in icing conditions, responds to an
action taken by EASA regarding a public comment made during the
harmonized rulemaking that led to adoption of Amendment 121 to part 25
and Amendment 3 to CS-25. The comment period closed February 17, 2011.

General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received comments from Airbus, the Boeing Company, the
Cessna Aircraft Company, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA), and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). ALPA
provided a general comment in support of the proposed changes. None of
the commenters opposed the proposed changes.

Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    Boeing questioned the wording of proposed Sec.  25.177(c), which
was taken directly from EASA's CS 25.177(c) and requires application of
at least 180 pounds of force to the rudder control to show compliance.
Boeing believes the intent is to require a control input of at least
one-half the available rudder control, but no more than 180 pounds of
pedal force. Airbus commented that there is no need to consider a
rudder control input beyond that corresponding to the maximum commanded
sideslip angle for the current flight conditions, even if it is lower
than one-half of the maximum possible displacement of the rudder pedal
control input.
    We agree. The language in the final rule reflects the original
intent (as described in Boeing's comment) of the proposed Sec.
25.177(c). We notified EASA that the wording of CS 25.177(c) is in
error and confirmed it will be corrected.
    We also agree with the Airbus interpretation of the requirement. We
recognize there is no need to apply more rudder control input than that
which results in the maximum available sideslip, even if that control
input is less than one-half of the maximum possible displacement of the
rudder pedal control. This can occur due to a rudder travel limiting
system or other feature of the airplane's flight control system.
Further rudder control input would not result in additional sideslip,
and therefore would not affect compliance with the rule.
    Airbus also commented on proposed Sec.  25.21(g)(1) to require the
stall warning requirements of Sec.  25.207(c) and (d) to be met in
icing conditions for the landing configuration. Airbus noted that
special conditions are used to identify appropriate safety standards
for Airbus fly-by-wire airplanes that have high incidence protection
features as part of their flight control system design. These special
conditions include requirements used in lieu of Sec.  25.207. We
anticipate that special conditions will continue to be used in lieu of
Sec.  25.207 to provide an equivalent level of safety to that
established in the regulations.
    Except for the change to Sec.  25.177(c), in response to the Boeing
comment discussed above, a minor clarifying addition to Sec.
25.177(a), and correcting errors in the references to Sec.  25.147(f)
in Sec. Sec.  25.253(b) and (c) noted in comments by Cessna and GAMA,
this final rule is adopted as proposed.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the
preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impact of the
final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows: The final rule will
amend Sec. Sec.  25.21(g)(1), 25.107(e)(1)(iv), 25.177, and 25.253 to
harmonize with EASA requirements already in CS-25. A review of current
practice of U.S. manufacturers of transport category airplanes has
revealed the manufacturers intend to fully comply with the EASA
standards (or are already complying) as a means of obtaining joint
certification. Since future certificated transport category airplanes
are expected to meet the existing CS-25 requirements and this final
rule will simply adopt the same requirements, the manufacturers will
incur no additional costs. The final rule will provide benefits from
reduced joint certification costs from the harmonization itself, and
for the parts of the rule harmonizing with less stringent EASA
requirements, manufacturers can expect additional benefits inherent in
the reduced stringency. The FAA, therefore, has determined that this
final rule will have no costs, and positive benefits, and does not
warrant a full regulatory evaluation. We discuss the basis for our
findings below.
    The FAA has also determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Who is potentially affected by this rulemaking?

    Manufacturers of transport category airplanes.

Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking

Cost and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.21(g)(1)

    For this amendment we are adopting an EASA requirement that has no
counterpart in the current CFR. Manufacturers' compliance with the EASA
requirement increases the safety of their airplanes. However, since the
manufacturers are already complying (or intend to comply) with the EASA
requirement, there will be no additional safety benefits from
compliance with the harmonizing amendment.
    As we are adopting an EASA requirement that has no counterpart in
the current CFR, this action will not reduce certification costs, which
include costs of data collection and analysis, paperwork, and time
spent applying for and obtaining approval from the regulatory
authorities. Since the manufacturers intend to comply with the EASA
requirement, however, they will incur no additional costs to comply
with the FAA harmonizing amendment.

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.107(e)(1)(iv)

    Manufacturers will benefit as a result of reduced certification
costs from the harmonization of Sec.  25.107(e)(1)(iv) with CS
25.107(e)(1)(iv). These benefits will result because the amendment is a
less stringent requirement that will reduce the required minimum
takeoff speed for geometry-limited (viz., tail contact with the runway)
airplanes. As discussed in the NPRM, since the minimum takeoff speed
is, in part, intended to reduce the probability of an airplane reaching
a takeoff pitch attitude beyond that shown to be safe, the additional
protection against such a condition inherent in a geometry-limited
airplane allows the minimum takeoff speed to be safely reduced. The
less stringent requirement implies higher takeoff weights, increases in
payload, and shorter takeoff distances for geometry-limited airplanes.
These are operator benefits, much of which will accrue to part 25
airplane manufacturers by increasing airplane value.
    As this amendment is relieving, there will be no increase in costs.

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.177

    Section 25.177(a) and (b) (requiring separate directional and
lateral stability assessments) were removed by Amendment 25-72,
published in the Federal Register (55 FR 29756), July 20, 1990. The FAA
considered them unnecessary since directional and lateral stability
could be determined using an ``alternative test'' based on data
obtained in showing compliance with Sec.  25.177(c). EASA's retention
of CS 25.177(a) and (b), however, allows manufacturers to use the
``basic test'' outlined by CS 25.177(a) and (b). Reinstatement of Sec.
25.177(a) and (b) will lower certification costs for manufacturers
preferring instead to use the ``basic test.'' Transport category
airplane manufacturers preferring to satisfy the stability requirements
with the ``alternative test'' of Sec.  25.177(c) will face no increase
in cost since they may still use that test. In any case, since
manufacturers intend to comply with CS 25.177(a) and (b), they will
incur no additional costs from complying with the harmonizing amendment
regardless of the cost situation.
    Compared to the current Sec.  25.177(c) and (d), CS 25.177(c) and
(d) have both more stringent and less stringent requirements. As
discussed in the NPRM, the less stringent requirement will increase the
safety of flight tests without reducing test validity. Compliance with
the more stringent requirement will entail some certification costs
and, as noted in the NPRM, reduce payload-carrying capability under
certain conditions. However, since the manufacturers intend to comply
with CS 25.177(c) and (d) (or are already complying), they will incur
no additional costs to comply with the harmonizing amendment.

Costs and Benefits of Amendment to Sec.  25.253

    Manufacturers will benefit as a result of reduced certification
costs from the harmonization of Sec.  25.253 with CS 25.253. Compliance
of manufacturers with the more stringent EASA requirements will also
increase the safety of their airplanes. However, the manufacturers
intend to comply with the EASA requirements (or are already complying).
So, there will be no additional safety benefits from compliance with
the FAA harmonizing amendment.
    Transport category airplane manufacturers will face additional
certification costs--especially additional flight testing costs--to
meet the EASA requirements. Since the manufacturers intend to comply
with the EASA requirements, however, they will incur no additional
costs to comply with the FAA harmonizing amendment.

Summary of Costs and Benefits

    The benefits of an FAA rule harmonizing with a more stringent EASA
rule necessarily flow from reduced certification costs brought about by
the harmonization itself. Just as any costs are attributable to
complying with the existing EASA rule, so too are any benefits from
increased safety. Accordingly, the benefits of the more stringent
Sec. Sec.  25.21(g)(1), 25.253, 25.177(a) and (b), and the more
stringent parts of Sec.  25.177(c) and (d) will be

reduced certification costs from harmonization.
    For an FAA rule harmonizing with a less stringent EASA rule, there
will be reduced certification costs from the harmonization itself, but
also benefits inherent in the reduced stringency. For Sec.
25.107(e)(1)(iv), the inherent benefits will be higher takeoff weights,
increases in payload, and shorter takeoff distances for geometry-
limited airplanes allowed by the reduced minimum takeoff speeds. For
the less stringent parts of Sec.  25.177(c) and (d), the inherent
benefits will be the increase in test flight safety brought about by
the less stringent requirement.
    As no commenters have disputed this same rationale used in the
NPRM, the FAA has determined that this final rule will have minimal
costs with positive net benefits and does not warrant a full regulatory
evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, this final rule will not entail any additional
costs to transport category airplane manufacturers as they are already
in compliance, or intend to fully comply, with more stringent EASA
standards. Moreover, all U.S. manufacturers of transport category
airplanes exceed the Small Business Administration small-entity
criteria of 1,500 employees. We received no comments on our
determination in the NPRM of no significant economic impact.
    Therefore as the FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that it
will promote international trade by harmonizing with corresponding EASA
regulations thus reducing the cost of joint certification.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $143.1 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the FAA, when modifying its regulations in a manner
affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the extent to
which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation,
and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions. In the NPRM, the
FAA requested comments on whether the proposed rule should apply
differently to intrastate operations in Alaska. The agency did not
receive any comments, and has determined, based on the administrative
record of this rulemaking, that there is no need to make any regulatory
distinctions applicable to intrastate aviation in Alaska.

Executive Order Determinations

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions

Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

How To Obtain Additional Information

Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet --
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search
FAA-2010-0310 for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.21 by revising paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.21  Proof of compliance.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Each requirement of this subpart, except Sec. Sec.  25.121(a),
25.123(c), 25.143(b)(1) and (2), 25.149, 25.201(c)(2), 25.239, and
25.251(b) through (e), must be met in icing conditions. Section
25.207(c) and (d) must be met in the landing configuration in icing
conditions, but need not be met for other configurations. Compliance
must be shown using the ice accretions defined in appendix C, assuming
normal operation of the airplane and its ice protection system in
accordance with the operating limitations and operating procedures
established by the applicant and provided in the Airplane Flight
Manual.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.107 by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iv) to read as
follows:

Sec.  25.107  Takeoff speeds.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) A speed that, if the airplane is rotated at its maximum
practicable rate, will result in a VLOF of not less than --
    (A) 110 percent of VMU in the all-engines-operating
condition, and 105 percent of VMU determined at the thrust-
to-weight ratio corresponding to the one-engine-inoperative condition;
or
    (B) If the VMU attitude is limited by the geometry of
the airplane (i.e., tail contact with the runway), 108 percent of
VMU in the all-engines-operating condition, and 104 percent
of VMU determined at the thrust-to-weight ratio
corresponding to the one-engine-inoperative condition.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise Sec.  25.177 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.177  Static lateral-directional stability.

    (a) The static directional stability (as shown by the tendency to
recover from a skid with the rudder free) must be positive for any
landing gear and flap position and symmetric power condition, at speeds
from 1.13 VSR1, up to VFE, VLE, or
VFC/MFC (as appropriate for the airplane
configuration).
    (b) The static lateral stability (as shown by the tendency to raise
the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free) for any
landing gear and flap position and symmetric power condition, may not
be negative at any airspeed (except that speeds higher than
VFE need not be considered for flaps extended configurations
nor speeds higher than VLE for landing gear extended
configurations) in the following airspeed ranges:
    (1) From 1.13 VSR1 to VMO/MMO.
    (2) From VMO/MMO to VFC/
MFC, unless the divergence is--
    (i) Gradual;
    (ii) Easily recognizable by the pilot; and
    (iii) Easily controllable by the pilot.
    (c) The following requirement must be met for the configurations
and speed specified in paragraph (a) of this section. In straight,
steady sideslips over the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the
operation of the airplane, the aileron and rudder control movements and
forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip in a
stable sense. This factor of proportionality must lie between limits
found necessary for safe operation. The range of sideslip angles
evaluated must include those sideslip angles resulting from the lesser
of:
    (1) One-half of the available rudder control input; and
    (2) A rudder control force of 180 pounds.
    (d) For sideslip angles greater than those prescribed by paragraph
(c) of this section, up to the angle at which full rudder control is
used or a rudder control force of 180 pounds is obtained, the rudder
control forces may not reverse, and increased rudder deflection must be
needed for increased angles of sideslip. Compliance with this
requirement must be shown using straight, steady sideslips, unless full
lateral control input is achieved before reaching either full rudder
control input or a rudder control force of 180 pounds; a straight,
steady sideslip need not be maintained after achieving full lateral
control input. This requirement must be met at all approved landing
gear and flap positions for the range of operating speeds and power
conditions appropriate to each landing gear and flap position with all
engines operating.

0
5. Amend Sec.  25.253 by adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) and revising
paragraphs (b) and (c) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  25.253  High-speed characteristics.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Adequate roll capability to assure a prompt recovery from a
lateral upset condition must be available at any speed up to
VDF/MDF.
    (5) With the airplane trimmed at VMO/MMO,
extension of the speedbrakes over the available range of movements of
the pilot's control, at all speeds above VMO/MMO,
but not so high that VDF/MDF would be exceeded
during the maneuver, must not result in:
    (i) An excessive positive load factor when the pilot does not take
action to counteract the effects of extension;
    (ii) Buffeting that would impair the pilot's ability to read the
instruments or control the airplane for recovery; or
    (iii) A nose down pitching moment, unless it is small.
    (b) Maximum speed for stability characteristics, VFC/MFC.
VFC/MFC is the maximum speed at which the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  25.143(g), 25.147(f), 25.175(b)(1),
25.177(a) through (c), and 25.181 must be met with flaps and landing
gear retracted. Except as noted in Sec.  25.253(c), VFC/
MFC may not be less than a speed midway between
VMO/MMO and VDF/MDF, except
that, for altitudes where Mach number is the limiting factor,
MFC need not exceed the Mach number at which effective speed
warning occurs.
    (c) Maximum speed for stability characteristics in icing
conditions. The maximum speed for stability characteristics with the
ice accretions defined in appendix C, at which the requirements of
Sec. Sec.  25.143(g), 25.147(f), 25.175(b)(1), 25.177(a) through (c),
and 25.181 must be met, is the lower of:
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 1, 2011.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-30954 Filed 11-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 72079]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28783]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0019; FRL-9903-31-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1053.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0023), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2014. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR
33409) on June 4, 2013, during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 2,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0019, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that
the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this
ICR. The docket can be viewed either online at www.regulations.gov, or
in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions, are specified at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Da. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit
a onetime-only report of any physical or operational changes, initial
performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or
operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. Reports are required semiannually at a minimum.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of electric
utility steam generating units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Da).
    Estimated number of respondents: 710 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 168,258 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $29,143,496 (per year), includes $12,685,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 7,419 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. There is also an increase in capital/startup and O&M
costs as compared to the previous ICR. All changes from the most
recently approved ICR are due to an increase in the number of existing
sources subject to the standard, and are not due to any program
changes. The number of existing sources has been increased to account
for industry growth that has occurred since the most recent ICR was
approved.
    There is also an increase in respondent and Agency burden costs
from the most-recently approved ICR due to the use of updated labor
rates. This ICR references labor rates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics to calculate respondent burden costs, and references labor
rates from OPM to calculate Agency burden costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-28783 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P