[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17700-17703]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07003]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0854; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01067-T;
Amendment 39-21432; AD 2021-04-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-01-
10, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. AD
2020-01-10 required installing flight control and guidance system
(FCGS) software (SW) X11 Standard (STD). This AD retains the
requirements of AD 2020-01-10, requires modifying the electrical power
supply of the air generation system (AGS) ram air outlet door
actuators, and expands the applicability by adding airplanes, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by the development
of a modification that forces the AGS ram air outlet doors to be flush
in cases of total engine flameout or loss of the main electrical
supply. Because of this additional modification, certain airplanes that
were excluded from the applicability of AD 2020-01-10 are included in
the applicability of this AD. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 11, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 11,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet

www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0854.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0854; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3218; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0167, dated July 27, 2020 (EASA
AD 2020-0167) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Airbus A350-941 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-01-10, Amendment 39-19816 (85 FR 6747,
February 6, 2020) (AD 2020-01-10). AD 2020-01-10 applied to certain
Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on October 1, 2020 (85 FR 61889). The NPRM was prompted by the
development of a modification that forces the AGS ram air outlet doors
to be flush in cases of total engine flameout or loss of the main
electrical supply. Because of this additional modification, certain
airplanes that were excluded from the applicability of AD 2020-01-10
are included in the applicability of this AD. The NPRM proposed to
retain the requirements of AD 2020-01-10, require modifying the
electrical power supply of the AGS ram air outlet door actuators, and
expand the applicability by adding airplanes, as specified in EASA AD
2020-0167.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address ram air turbine (RAT)
performance that may be below the expected (certificated) level when
the landing gear is extended, which could lead to partial or total loss
of RAT electrical power generation when the RAT is deployed in an
emergency situation, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) supported the
NPRM.

Request To Revise the Compliance Time for a Certain Action

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that the compliance time specified
in paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD be revised. The commenter
requested that the compliance time be changed from March 12, 2020 (the
effective date of AD 2020-01-10) to the effective date of the final
rule. The commenter also requested that the FAA add an exception to
paragraph (h) of the proposed AD allowing the software change specified
in paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0167 to be done within 3 years after
the effective date of the final rule. The commenter explained that the
compliance time in the proposed AD would have started before the date
of manufacture of each airplane that would be affected by the proposed
AD, therefore operators would have a compressed timeline for
accomplishing the required actions. The commenter noted that in
corresponding EASA AD 2020-0167, which superseded EASA AD 2019-0203,
the compliance time was ``within 10 months after September 3, 2019 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2019-0203).''
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request. The actions
specified in paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0167 are retained actions
that were also required in AD 2020-01-10. The compliance time for those
retained actions remains the same in this AD (within 10 months after
March 12, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-01-10)). Operators have
been aware of the software change required by this AD since March 12,
2020; therefore an extension of the compliance time for that action in
this final rule is not warranted. New airplanes started receiving the
modified software in production prior to July 25, 2019 (the date EASA
issued PAD 19-142, which became EASA AD 2019-0203), so there is no
justification for extending the compliance time to 3 years after the
effective date of this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD in regard to
this issue.

Request for Clarification That Reporting Is Not Required

    DAL requested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised to
include an exception to clarify that reporting is not required. The
commenter noted that in Airbus Service Bulletin A350-21-P038, Revision
1, dated August 31, 2020, submitting certain information to the
manufacturer is included in step 3.C.(4). of paragraph 3.C., and that
paragraph 3.C. is specified as required for compliance (RC). The
commenter noted that the information to be submitted is business
related and is not directly related to the unsafe condition addressed
in the NPRM.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reasons
provided. The FAA has added paragraph (i) of this AD to specify that
reporting is not required. The subsequent paragraphs have been
redesignated accordingly.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the change described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0167 describes procedures for installing FCGS SW X11
STD and for modifying the electrical power supply of the AGS ram air
outlet door actuators. This material is

reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2020-01-10...  8 work-hours x $85 per            $4,650          $5,330         $69,290
                                         hour = $680.
New actions...........................  8 work-hours x $85 per             1,950           2,630          34,190
                                         hour = $680.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-01-10, Amendment 39-19816
(85 FR 6747, February 6, 2020), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2021-04-11 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21432; Docket No. FAA-2020-0854;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01067-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 11, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-01-10, Amendment 39-19816 (85 FR 6747,
February 6, 2020) (AD 2020-01-10).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0167, dated July 27, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0167).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air
Conditioning; and 42, Flight Control and Guidance System.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination through testing that ram
air turbine (RAT) performance may be below the expected
(certificated) level when the landing gear is extended, and by the
development of a modification that forces the air generation system
(AGS) ram air outlet doors to be flush in cases of total engine
flameout or loss of the main electrical supply. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address RAT performance that may be below the expected
(certificated) level when the landing gear is extended, which could
lead to partial or total loss of RAT electrical power generation
when the RAT is deployed in an emergency situation, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0167.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0167

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0167 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0167 refers to September 3, 2019 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2019-0203), this AD requires using March
12, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-01-10).
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0167 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Required

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0167
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any

approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraphs (i) and (j)(2) of this AD, if any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 11, 2021.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0167,
dated July 27, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For EASA AD 2020-0167, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0854.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 8, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-07003 Filed 4-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 56315]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2788-017]

Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a subsequent license for the Colliersville
Hydroelectric Project, located on the Susquehanna River, in the Town of
Milford, Otsego County, New York, and has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the project.
    The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-2788-017.
    For further information, contact Emily Carter at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

    Dated: November 6, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24703 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  HYPERLINK "https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=5B-57.011" \t
"ruleNo"  5B-57.011  Biomass Plantings.

(1) Biomass Permit Requirements. It shall be unlawful to establish a
biomass planting greater in size than two contiguous acres except under
a biomass permit (Biomass Planting Permit, DACS-08382, revised 04/08)
issued by the department for this purpose and is incorporated herein by
reference. An application for new biomass permit will be required if the
planting (contiguous or noncontiguous) will exceed five percent (5%) of
the acreage of the original permit. No biomass permit shall be issued
for any planting of plants on the state noxious weed list or the federal
noxious weed list. No biomass permit shall be issued unless the
applicant is the owner of the property or has written permission from
the property owner to utilize the land for biomass plantings for the
duration of the life of the permit. Applications for biomass permits
shall be made on Biomass Planting Permit Application, DACS-08381,
revised 06/08, and submitted to the Division of Plant Industry, P. O.
Box 147100, Gainesville, FL 32614-7100, for this purpose and is
incorporated herein by reference. The application forms can be obtained
from the same address or from the Division of Plant Industry website,
HYPERLINK "http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/plt/methods.html"
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/plt/methods.html . Separate
applications for biomass permits shall be required for each
noncontiguous growing location and must include a complete description
of the nonnative plant to be grown and an estimated cost of removing and
destroying the subject plant including the basis for calculating or
determining that estimate. The applications must be submitted with the
permit fee of $50 and proof that a bond in the form as required in
subsection (2), issued by a surety company admitted to do business in
Florida or a certificate of deposit has been obtained as described in
Section 581.083(4), F.S. In evaluating the permit application, the
department shall visit the proposed growing location and determine if
feasible measures can be taken to prevent the spread of the plant into
neighboring ecosystems. The permit will include the following
requirements as a minimum:

(a) A system of traps or filters shall be required to prevent plants or
plant parts from spreading through ditches, natural waterways or other
drainage. A fallow area in excess of 25 feet may be considered as a
trap.

(b) Measures will be required to prevent spread by seed.

(c) A fallow area, wide enough to prevent plant spread into adjacent
areas, shall be required. The fallow area may be used singularly or in
combination with a berm surrounding the biomass planting.

(d) Any equipment used on the site must be cleaned of all plant debris
before being moved from the property.

(e) Wildfire protection measures will be required to mitigate fire risk
and damages to surrounding areas.

(f) A compliance agreement (Compliance Agreement, Biomass, DACS-08383,
revised 04/08) containing any additional requirements needed to prevent
plant spread shall be signed and will be an addendum to the permit for
this purpose and is incorporated herein by reference. Copies of
Compliance Agreement, Biomass, DACS-08383, revised 04/08, may be
obtained from the Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Plant and Apiary
Inspection, P. O. Box 147100, Gainesville, FL 32614-7100, or
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/plt/methods.html. Failure to abide
by the permit stipulations or the compliance agreement is considered to
be a violation of these rules.

(2) Bonds or Certificates of Deposit. Each permit holder shall maintain
for each separate growing location a bond or a certificate of deposit in
an amount of not less than 150 percent of the estimated cost of removing
and destroying the plants as described in Section 581.083(4), F.S. The
bond or certificate of deposit may not exceed $5,000 per acre except as
allowed by Section 581.083(4)(e), F.S. The Bond or CD assignment or
agreement must be on forms DACS-08439, revised 05/08, Biomass Plantings
Bond or DACS-08440, revised 05/08, Assignment of Certificate of Deposit,
incorporated herein by reference. These forms are available from the
Division of Plant Industry, P. O. Box 147100, Gainesville, FL 32614-7100
or   HYPERLINK "http://www.doacs.state"  http://www.doacs.state .
fl.us/onestop/plt/methods.html.

(3) Abandoned Biomass Plantings. It shall be unlawful for any person to
abandon a biomass planting. It is the responsibility of the property
owner or permit holder to completely destroy the planting prior to
vacating the property or stopping commercial production. If the
department determines that the permit holder is no longer maintaining or
cultivating the plants subject to the special permit and has not removed
and destroyed the plants authorized by the special permit or has
exceeded the conditions of the biomass permit, the department shall take
action to initiate the removal of the plants through the issuance of an
immediate final order and execution of the bond or certificate of
deposit as described in Section 581.083(4), F.S.

(4) Exemptions. A biomass permit is not required for plants produced for
purposes of agriculture as defined in Section 570.02(1), F.S., or if the
department in consultation with the University of Florida, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences has determined that the non-native plant
is not invasive and specifically exempts it in this rule. The following
plants or groups of plants are exempt:

(a) Any plant that is produced for purposes of human food consumption.

(b) Any plant that is commonly grown for commercial feed, feedstuff or
forage for livestock.

(c) Pinus spp.

Specific Authority 570.07(13), (23) FS. Law Implemented 581.031(4), (5),
(6), 581.083, 581.091 FS. History–New 10-1-06, Amended 9-24-08.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28930-28931]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0176]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Application
for an Exemption From Daimler Trucks North America LLC

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
requests public comment on an application for exemption from Daimler
Trucks North America LLC (DTNA) to allow its Attention Assist and Lane
Departure Warning system camera to be mounted lower in the windshield
on DTNA's commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) than is currently permitted.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2017-0176 using any of the
following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket
site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public participation: The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is
generally available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You may find
electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the
``help'' section of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site as well as
the DOT's http://docketsinfo.dot.gov Web site. If you would like
notification that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jose R. Cestero, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety, MC-PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA- 21) [Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 401] amended 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). On August 20,
2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) implementing section
4007. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must
provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the information
relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have
been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
    The decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must
state the reason for doing so. If the decision is to grant the
exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons
receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision or provisions from
which an exemption is granted. The notice must specify the effective
period of the exemption (up to 5 years) and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.315(c) and 49 CFR 381.300(b)).

DTNA's Application for Exemption

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) require
devices meeting the definition of ``vehicle safety technology,''
including DTNA's Attention Assist and Lane Departure Warning system, to
be mounted (1) not more than 4 inches below the upper edge of the area
swept by the windshield wipers, or (2) not more than 7 inches above the
lower edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, and outside the
driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals. Because
the camera would be mounted outside of the driver's normal sight lines

to the road ahead, highway signs and signals, and all mirrors, DTNA
believes that the exemption would maintain a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption.
    DTNA has applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow
an Attention Assist and Lane Departure Warning system camera to be
mounted lower in the windshield than is currently permitted. A copy of
the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning
of this notice.
    Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) of the FMCSRs prohibits the obstruction of
the driver's field of view by devices mounted at the top of the
windshield. Antennas and similar devices must not be mounted more than
152 mm (6 inches) below the upper edge of the windshield, and outside
the driver's sight lines to the road and highway signs and signals.
Section 393.60(e)(1)(i) does not apply to vehicle safety technologies,
as defined in Sec.  390.5 as including ``a fleet-related incident
management system, performance or behavior management system, speed
management system, lane departure warning system, forward collision
warning or mitigation system, active cruise control system, and
transponder.'' Section 393.60(e)(1)(ii) requires devices with vehicle
safety technologies to be mounted (1) not more than 100 mm (4 inches)
below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield wipers, or (2)
not more than 175 mm (7 inches) above the lower edge of the area swept
by the windshield wipers, and outside the driver's sight lines to the
road and highway signs and signals.
    In its application, DTNA states:

    The proposed exemption will increase safety by providing
Attention Assist and Lane Departure Warning. The exemption will also
allow DTNA to enable additional safety features in the future that
will provide further safety benefits such as traffic sign
recognition, active lane keeping, video capture, and intelligent
headlight control. This safety device will become a critical enabler
for future technology such as Autonomous Vehicles.
    In the DTNA installation, the camera housing is approximately
102 mm (4.01 inches) wide by 177 mm (6.97 inches) tall. We propose
to mount the camera such that it is in the approximate center of the
top of the windshield and such that the bottom edge of the camera is
approximately 7 inches below the upper edge of the windshield,
outside of the driver's (and passenger's) normal sight lines to the
road ahead, highway signs and signals, and all mirrors. This
location will allow for the optimal functionality of the advanced
safety systems supported by the camera.
    DTNA has created a CAD layout of a typical DTNA conventional
type truck to verify that the safety device does not significantly
obstruct the FMVSS 104 specified zones A, B, or C for passenger cars
of 1730 or more mm overall width. (See Figure 1.) In fact, the
device only obstructs 0.0% of zone C, 1.2% of zone B, and 2.8% of
zone A.
    DTNA has installed prototype camera housings in fifteen DTNA
conventional type vehicles and assessed the impact of the camera on
driver and passenger visibility on over 50 CDL drivers and over
900,000 miles. This includes over-the-road mileage accumulation
through a mixture of mountain, freeway, highway, and city routes.
(See Figure 2 for a photograph taken from the driver seat.) All
drivers and passengers agreed that there was no noticeable
obstruction to the normal sight lines to the road ahead, highway
signs, signals, or any mirrors. Driver comments included: ``The
position of the MPC1 camera system does not negatively impact
visibility.''

    While the application states that the camera will be mounted 7
inches below the upper edge of the windshield, DTNA provided
supplemental information to clarify that the camera system will be
mounted 8.5 inches below the upper edge of the area swept by the
windshield wipers.
    The exemption would apply to all CMV operators driving DTNA
vehicles with the Attention Assist and Lane Departure Warning system
camera installed. Daimler believes that mounting the system as
described would maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on DTNA's application for an
exemption from 49 CFR 393.60. All comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this
notice will be considered and will be available for examination in the
docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this
notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed
in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the
public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the
comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the
public docket for new material.

    Issued on: June 15, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-13126 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18934-18935]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0035]

Revision of the Emergency Medical Services Agenda for the Future;
Request for Information

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; request for information.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA, on behalf of the Federal Interagency Committee on
Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS), is seeking comments from all
sources (public, private, governmental, academic, professional, public
interest groups, and other interested parties) on the planned revision
of the 1996 Emergency Medical Services Agenda for the Future (EMS
Agenda).
    FICEMS was created (42 U.S.C. 300d-4) by the Secretaries of
Transportation, Health and Human Services and Homeland Security to, in
part, ensure coordination among the Federal agencies involved with
State, local, tribal or regional emergency medical services and 9-1-1
systems. FICEMS has statutory authority to identify State and local
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and 9-1-1 needs, to recommend new or
expanded programs and to identify the ways in which Federal agencies
can streamline their processes for support of EMS. FICEMS includes
representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense--Health Affairs, the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Preparedness and Response (ASPR), HHS Indian Health Service (IHS), HHS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HHS Health Resources
and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Office of Health Affairs (OHA), DHS U.S. Fire Administration (USFA),
NHTSA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a State EMS
Director appointed by the Secretary of Transportation.
    On June 19, 2014, FICEMS unanimously approved a motion to proceed
with a revision of the EMS Agenda, with a focus on data-driven
approaches to future improvements.
    This followed an April 24, 2014 letter in which the National
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC) issued
recommendations to NHTSA regarding revision of the EMS Agenda. NEMSAC's
recommendations were as follows:
     A major revision of the EMS Agenda for the Future should
be undertaken as soon as possible;
     The revision process should be guided by an external
entity (not NEMSAC) that will ensure a consensus- and data-driven
process with broad stakeholder representation. The goal should be to
replicate the process used to develop the original EMS Agenda for the
Future, published in 1996;
     The U.S. Department of Transportation should seek
financial support and assistance from members of FICEMS to accomplish
this task.
    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments on the planned
revision of the EMS Agenda, and to request responses to specific
questions provided below. This is neither a request for proposals nor
an invitation for bids.

DATES: It is requested that comments on this announcement be submitted
by June 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by Docket No. NHTSA-
2016-0035] through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gamunu Wijetunge, Office of Emergency
Medical Services,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>located at
the United States Department of Transportation; 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., NPD-400, Room W44-232, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from
9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 1996 NHTSA, in partnership with HRSA, published the EMS Agenda
(www.ems.gov/pdf/2010/EMSAgendaWeb_7-06-10.pdf). The document created a
vision for the future of EMS systems in the United States and led to
EMS system improvements across the Nation. Changes envisioned by the
EMS Agenda included the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS), the
``EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach'', universal
wireless 9-1-1, automatic crash notification, the recognition of EMS as
a physician sub-specialty, and many others.
    The EMS Agenda included the following vision statement: ``Emergency
medical services (EMS) of the future will be community-based health
management that is fully integrated with the overall health care
system. It will have the ability to identify and modify illness and
injury risks, provide acute illness and injury care and follow-up, and
contribute to treatment of chronic conditions and community health
monitoring. This new entity will be developed from redistribution of
existing health care resources and will be integrated with other health
care providers and public health and public safety agencies. It will
improve community health and result in more appropriate use of acute
health care resources. EMS will remain the public's emergency medical
safety net.''
    Furthermore, the EMS Agenda proposed development of the following
14 EMS attributes:
     Integration of Health Services;
     EMS Research;
     Legislation and Regulation;
     System Finance;
     Human Resources;

     Medical Direction;
     Education Systems;
     Public Education;
     Prevention;
     Public Access;
     Communication Systems;
     Clinical Care;
     Information Systems;
     Evaluation.
    In 2014, NEMSAC recommended that NHTSA undertake a major revision
of the EMS Agenda. NHTSA, on behalf of FICEMS, intends to work closely
with EMS stakeholders in revising the EMS Agenda. It is anticipated the
revised EMS Agenda will envision the evolution of EMS systems over the
next 30 years.

Questions on the Proposed Revision of the EMS Agenda

    Responses to the following questions are requested to help plan the
revision of the EMS Agenda. Please provide references as appropriate.
    1. What are the most critical issues facing EMS systems that should
be addressed in the revision of the EMS Agenda? Please be as specific
as possible.
    2. What progress has been made in implementing the EMS Agenda since
its publication in 1996?
    3. How have you used the EMS Agenda? Please provide specific
examples.
    4. As an EMS stakeholder, how might the revised EMS Agenda be most
useful to you?
    5. What significant changes have occurred in EMS systems at the
national, State and local levels since 1996?
    6. What significant changes will impact EMS systems over the next
30 years?
    7. How might the revised EMS Agenda support the following FICEMS
Strategic Plan goals:
    a. Coordinated, regionalized, and accountable EMS and 9-1-1 systems
that provide safe, high-quality care;
    b. data-driven and evidence-based EMS systems that promote improved
patient care quality;
    c. EMS systems fully integrated into State, territorial, local,
tribal, regional, and Federal preparedness planning, response, and
recovery;
    d. EMS systems that are sustainable, forward looking, and
integrated with the evolving health care system;
    e. an EMS culture in which safety considerations for patients,
providers, and the community permeate the full spectrum of activities;
and
    f. a well-educated and uniformly credentialed EMS workforce.
    8. How could the revised EMS Agenda contribute to enhanced
emergency medical services for children?
    9. How could the revised EMS Agenda address the future of EMS data
collection and information sharing?
    10. How could the revised EMS Agenda support data-driven and
evidence-based improvements in EMS systems?
    11. How could the revised EMS Agenda enhance collaboration among
EMS systems, health care providers, hospitals, public safety answering
points, public health, insurers, palliative care and others?
    12. How will innovative patient care delivery and finance models
impact EMS systems over the next 30 years?
    13. How could the revised EMS Agenda promote community preparedness
and resilience?
    14. How could the revised EMS Agenda contribute to improved
coordination for mass casualty incident preparedness and response?
    15. How could the revised EMS Agenda enhance the exchange of
evidence based practices between military and civilian medicine?
    16. How could the revised EMS Agenda support the seamless and
unimpeded transfer of military EMS personnel to roles as civilian EMS
providers?
    17. How could the revised EMS Agenda support interstate
credentialing of EMS personnel?
    18. How could the revised EMS Agenda support improved patient
outcomes in rural and frontier communities?
    19. How could the revised EMS Agenda contribute to improved EMS
education systems at the local, State, and national levels?
    20. How could the revised EMS Agenda lead to improved EMS systems
in tribal communities?
    21. How could the revised EMS Agenda promote a culture of safety
among EMS personnel, agencies and organizations?
    22. Are there additional EMS attributes that should be included in
the revised EMS Agenda? If so, please provide an explanation for why
these additional EMS attributes should be included.
    23. Are there EMS attributes in the EMS Agenda that should be
eliminated from the revised edition? If so, please provide an
explanation for why these EMS attributes should be eliminated.
    24. What are your suggestions for the process that should be used
in revising the EMS Agenda?
    25. What specific agencies/organizations/entities are essential to
involve, in a revision of the EMS Agenda?
    26. Do you have any additional comments regarding the revision of
the EMS Agenda?

    Issued on: March 22, 2016.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016-06960 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59327-59331]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23704]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0522; FRL-10001-07-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Revisions to NOX SIP Call Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA) a request from the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to revise the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate revisions to Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-14 regarding the Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) SIP Call. This SIP revision would approve alternative
monitoring requirements for certain covered sources.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2019-0522 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What is EPA's analysis of this SIP submission?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), called the good neighbor
provision, states are required to address interstate transport of air
pollution. Specifically, the good neighbor provision provides that each
state's SIP must contain provisions prohibiting emissions from within
that state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other state.
    On October 27, 1998, EPA published the NOX SIP Call,
which required eastern states, including Ohio, to submit SIPs that
prohibit excessive emissions of ozone season NOX by
implementing statewide emissions budgets (63 FR 57356). The
NOX SIP Call addressed the

good neighbor provision for the 1979 ozone NAAQS and was designed to
mitigate the impact of transported NOX emissions, one of the
precursors of ozone. EPA developed the NOX Budget Trading
Program, an allowance trading program that states could adopt to meet
their obligations under the NOX SIP Call. This trading
program allowed certain sources to participate in a regional cap and
trade program: Electric Generating Units (EGUs) with capacity greater
than 25 megawatts; and large non-EGUs, such as boilers and turbines,
with a rated heat input greater than 250 million British thermal units
per hour (MMBtu/hr). The NOX SIP Call also identified
potential reductions from Portland cement kilns and stationary internal
combustion engines.
    In fulfillment of the requirements of the NOX SIP Call,
Ohio EPA promulgated OAC Chapter 3745-14 which, among other things,
required EGUs and large non-EGUs in the state to participate in the
NOX Budget Trading Program. On August 5, 2003, EPA published
an action approving this initial version of OAC Chapter 3745-14 into
the Ohio SIP (68 FR 46089).
    On May 12, 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), which required eastern states, including Ohio, to submit SIPs
that prohibited emissions consistent with annual and ozone season
NOX budgets and annual sulfur dioxide (SO2)
budgets (70 FR 25152). CAIR addressed the good neighbor provision for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of
transported NOX emissions, a precursor of ozone as well as
PM2.5, as well as transported SO2 emissions,
another precursor of PM2.5. Like the NOX SIP
Call, CAIR also established several trading programs that states could
use as mechanisms to comply with the budgets. When the CAIR trading
program for ozone season NOX was implemented beginning in
2009, EPA discontinued administration of the NOX Budget
Trading Program, but the requirements of the NOX SIP Call
continued to apply.
    To meet the requirements of CAIR, Ohio EPA promulgated OAC Chapter
3745-109, which required EGUs to participate in the CAIR annual
SO2 and annual and ozone season NOX trading
programs. Participation by EGUs in the CAIR trading program for ozone
season NOX addressed the state's obligation under the
NOX SIP Call for those units. Ohio EPA also opted to
incorporate large non-EGUs previously regulated under OAC Chapter 3745-
14 into OAC Chapter 3745-109, to meet the obligations of the
NOX SIP Call with respect to those units through the CAIR
trading program as well. On September 25, 2009, EPA published an action
approving OAC Chapter 3745-109 into the Ohio SIP (74 FR 48857).
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The ruling allowed CAIR to
remain in effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with
the court's opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a
replacement rule, the CAIR program continued as planned with the
NOX annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and
the SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.
    On August 8, 2011, acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA
published the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR
and to address the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
(76 FR 48208). Through Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), CSAPR
required EGUs in eastern states, including Ohio, to meet annual and
ozone season NOX budgets and annual SO2 budgets
implemented through new trading programs. CSAPR also contained
provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule
coordinated with the implementation of the CSAPR compliance
requirements. Participation by a state's EGUs in the CSAPR trading
program for ozone season NOX generally addressed the state's
obligation under the NOX SIP Call for EGUs. However, CSAPR
did not initially contain provisions allowing states to incorporate
large non-EGUs into that trading program to meet the requirements of
the NOX SIP Call for non-EGUs.
    CSAPR was intended to become effective January 1, 2012; however,
the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by subsequent
litigation in which the D.C. Circuit stayed implementation of the rule
pending judicial review. After subsequent litigation,\1\ the court
granted EPA's motion to lift the stay \2\ and, on December 3, 2014, EPA
issued an interim final rule, setting the updated effective date of
CSAPR as January 1, 2015 (79 FR 71663). In accordance with the interim
final rule, EPA stopped administering the CAIR trading programs with
respect to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014, and EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C.
Cir. 2012) (EME Homer City I) (vacating and remanding CSAPR); EPA v.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014) (reversing the
D.C. Circuit decision and remanding for further proceedings).
    \2\ The D.C. Circuit subsequently issued its decision on remand
from the Supreme Court, largely affirming CSAPR but remanding
certain states budgets to EPA for reconsideration. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (EME Homer City II).
    \3\ EPA solicited comment on the interim final rule and
subsequently issued a final rule affirming the amended compliance
schedule after consideration of comments received. 81 FR 13275
(March 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2016, EPA published the CSAPR Update, which
established a new ozone season NOX trading program for EGUs
in eastern states, including Ohio, to address the good neighbor
provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 74504). As under CSAPR,
participation by a state's EGUs in the new CSAPR trading program for
ozone season NOX generally addressed the state's obligation
under the NOX SIP Call for EGUs. The CSAPR Update also
expanded options available to states for meeting NOX SIP
Call requirements for large non-EGUs by allowing states to incorporate
those units into the new trading program.
    After evaluating the various options available following the CSAPR
Update, Ohio EPA chose to meet the ongoing NOX SIP Call
requirements for existing and new large non-EGUs by modifying its
existing regulations at OAC Chapter 3745-14 to make the portion of the
budget assigned to large non-EGUs under that program enforceable
without an allowance trading mechanism. Ohio also rescinded its CAIR
trading program rules in OAC Chapter 3745-109 in full. On September 17,
2019, EPA published an action approving Ohio EPA's request to modify
its SIP to include the revisions at OAC Chapter 3745-14 and to remove
OAC Chapter 3745-109 (84 FR 48789).
    Under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) of the NOX SIP Call
regulations as originally promulgated, where a state's SIP contains
control measures for EGUs and large non-EGUs, the SIP must also require
these sources to monitor emissions according to the provisions of 40
CFR part 75, which generally entails the use of continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS). Ohio triggered this requirement by including
control measures in their SIP for these types of sources, and the
requirement has remained in effect despite the discontinuation of the
NOX Budget Trading Program after the 2008 ozone season. On
March 8, 2019, EPA

finalized updates to the provision at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4) to make the
inclusion of 40 CFR part 75 monitoring requirements for these sources
in SIPs optional rather than mandatory for NOX SIP Call
purposes (84 FR 8422). Under the updated provision, a state's SIP would
still need to include some form of emissions monitoring requirements
for these types of sources, consistent with the NOX SIP
Call's general enforceability and monitoring requirements at Sec.
[thinsp]51.121(f)(1) and (i)(1), respectively, but states would no
longer be required to satisfy these general NOX SIP Call
requirements specifically through the adoption of 40 CFR part 75
monitoring requirements.
    After evaluating the various options available following EPA's
March 8, 2019, amendments to the NOX SIP Call regulations,
Ohio EPA chose to further revise its rules at OAC Chapter 3745-14 to
include alternate monitoring requirements for certain covered sources.
These revisions provide a process by which the designated
representative for certain NOX budget units may submit to
the Ohio EPA director an application for an installation or operating
permit requesting alternative monitoring and reporting requirements,
either in the form of 40 CFR part 60 monitoring or in the form of
monitoring of heat input and fuel use combined with use of an approved
emission factor.

II. What is EPA's analysis of this SIP submission?

    Ohio's August 26, 2019, submission requests that EPA update Ohio's
SIP to reflect the revised rules at OAC Chapter 3745-14. Additionally,
this submission includes a demonstration under Section 110(l) of the
CAA intended to show that this SIP revision does not interfere with any
applicable CAA requirement.

A. Revised State Rules

    Given EPA's revision to the NOX SIP Call's emissions
monitoring requirements, Ohio updated its NOX SIP Call rules
at OAC Chapter 3745-14 to establish emissions monitoring requirements
for certain units other than requirements to monitor according to 40
CFR part 75. Specifically, Ohio adopted revisions to OAC rules 3745-14-
01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 with a state-effective date of August
22, 2019. Ohio's August 26, 2019, submission includes a request that
EPA approve these updated rules into its SIP.
    The state regulations addressing the NOX SIP Call are
established at OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, 3745-14-04, 3745-14-
08, 3745-14-11, and 3745-14-12. On September 17, 2019, EPA approved
revisions to OAC rule 3745-14-03 concerning NOX budget
permit requirements, and Ohio has not further amended OAC rule 3745-14-
03 subsequent to EPA's approval (84 FR 48789). Ohio has also retained
OAC rules 3745-14-11 and 3745-14-12 regarding cement kilns and
stationary internal combustion engines outside the former trading
program. EPA's September 17, 2019, rulemaking also included approval of
revisions to OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08
pertaining to applicability, the statewide emissions budgets for EGUs
and large non-EGUs, and monitoring and reporting under the former
trading program. Subsequent to the revisions approved in EPA's
September 17, 2019, rulemaking, Ohio further revised OAC rules 3745-14-
01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 to establish alternative monitoring
requirements for certain sources, and Ohio's August 26, 2019 submission
requests that EPA approve these further revised rules into its SIP.
    Specifically, a new provision at OAC rule 3745-14-08 paragraph (H)
provides that the Ohio EPA director may approve alternative monitoring
and reporting requirements in lieu of the existing requirements at OAC
rule 3745-14-08 paragraphs (A) through (G). These alternative
requirements shall be based on the best available data, provide for
reporting the nature and amount of emissions of a NOX budget
unit, and shall be sufficient to determine compliance with the
requirements of OAC Chapter 3745-14. Per OAC rule 3745-14-01 paragraph
(C) as approved into Ohio's SIP in EPA's September 17, 2019,
rulemaking, the monitoring requirements at OAC rule 3745-14-08 apply
only to units that would have been subject to the former NOX
Budget Trading Program and that are not subject to a CSAPR trading
program for NOX emissions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.38, and the
revised provisions authorizing alternative monitoring requirements
therefore would also apply only to units that are not subject to a
CSAPR trading program for NOX emissions.
    The alternative requirements may take one of two forms: Either
monitoring and reporting in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, combined
with a methodology for determining NOX mass emissions from
40 CFR part 60 NOX emission rate data, or monitoring of heat
input and fuel use combined with use of an approved emission factor for
current operating conditions.
    A request under OAC rule 3745-14-08 paragraph (H) for alternative
monitoring and reporting requirements must be made by the designated
representative of a NOX budget unit via application for an
installation or operating permit. The request must specify which of the
two forms is requested. If 40 CFR part 60 monitoring is requested, the
application must describe how the amount of NOX emissions in
tons will be determined from the 40 CFR part 60 NOX emission
rate data. If monitoring of heat input and fuel use combined with use
of an approved emission factor is requested, then the request must
include an analysis evaluating potential emission factors for each fuel
type. The analysis of potential emission factors must include an
analysis of any historical CEMS data representative of current
operating conditions as well as the results of a valid stack test
conducted within the two years preceding the application, if available.
The application must also describe how monitoring data will be
obtained, recorded, and quality-assured and how NOX
emissions will be accounted for during periods of missing or inaccurate
data.
    If alternative monitoring and reporting is requested to begin
within a control period, the application must include a description of
the transition process ensuring there will not be gaps in data
monitoring and reporting.
    The alternative monitoring and reporting requirements must be
approved, prior to use, in the applicable installation or operating
permit. By April 15 of each year, a report must be made to the Ohio EPA
director of actual NOX emissions for the previous control
period, as determined using the approved alternative monitoring
procedures. Records must be maintained in accordance with the terms and
condition in the installation or operating permit and shall be made
available to the Ohio EPA director.
    Units using approved emissions factors must conduct stack testing
according to an approved test method at least once every five years to
demonstrate that the approved emission factors continue to be
representative. If an initial application did not include stack test
data, an initial stack test must be conducted within 90 days of permit
issuance. The results of each stack test must be submitted to Ohio EPA
within 30 days of the test. Based on the results of any stack test,
Ohio EPA may require submission of a new application to establish more
representative emission factors.
    Ohio's revisions provide that the rule does not authorize
exemptions or alternatives to any 40 CFR part 75 monitoring
requirements that might apply to a source under a different legal

authority. The revised rule further states that Ohio EPA will transmit
annually to EPA a report of NOX emissions reported under OAC
rule 3745-14-08 paragraph (H), in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.122(c)(1)(i).
    Given the addition of paragraph (H) to OAC rule 3745-14-08, Ohio's
revisions also include changes throughout the remainder of OAC rule
3745-14-08 which clarify that sources not adopting approved alternative
monitoring and reporting requirements are only subject to the
requirements of paragraphs (A) through (G). In OAC rule 3745-14-01,
Ohio's revisions clarify references to the revised OAC rule 3745-14-08,
and additionally provide updated definitions regarding emissions and
emission factors. Ohio's revisions to OAC rule 3745-14-04 provide for a
compliance certification process for sources subject to approved
alternative monitoring and reporting requirements.
    EPA proposes to find that Ohio's revisions to OAC rules 3745-14-01,
3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 are consistent with Ohio's obligation to
demonstrate continued compliance with NOX SIP Call
requirements for large non-EGUs. Under the ongoing requirements of the
NOX SIP Call, the Ohio SIP must: (1) Include enforceable
control measures for ozone season NOX mass emissions from
existing and new large EGUs and large non-EGUs and (2) require those
sources to monitor and report ozone season NOX emissions.
The emissions monitoring and reporting requirements must be sufficient
to ensure compliance with the control measures but there is no
mandatory specific methodology; use of 40 CFR part 75 is allowed but
not required. See 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i).
    With respect to the NOX SIP Call requirement that the
state have enforceable control measures to limit ozone season
NOX, Ohio is currently subject to the Federal CSAPR Update
trading program for ozone season NOX that addresses these
requirements for existing and new EGUs. Because Ohio's non-EGUs are not
subject to that CSAPR trading program, the state must meet this
requirement for non-EGUs through other SIP provisions. In our September
17, 2019, action, EPA previously approved provisions at OAC rule 3745-
14-01 intended to satisfy this requirement for non-EGUs that prohibit
ozone season NOX emissions from existing and new large non-
EGUs from exceeding 4,028 tons, the portion of the state's
NOX SIP Call budget assigned to large non-EGUs. Ohio's
revisions do not substantively alter the existing provisions at OAC
rule 3745-14-01 that address the requirement for enforceable control
measures for non-EGUs.\4\ Emissions reported to EPA from the state's
large non-EGUs for the 2018 ozone season were 543 tons, well below this
limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As EPA previously determined that the state adequately
addressed the NOX SIP Call requirement that states
include enforceable control measures for ozone season NOX
mass emissions from existing and new large EGUs and large non-EGUs,
EPA is not reopening for comment the determination made in our
September 17, 2019, action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the requirement for sources to monitor and report ozone
season NOX emissions under the NOX SIP Call,
these SIP revisions would continue to require emissions monitoring from
all covered sources, consistent with the NOX SIP Call's
enforceability and monitoring requirements, but certain NOX
budget units would no longer be required to satisfy these requirements
specifically through part 75 monitoring requirements. Instead, these
revisions would allow large non-EGUs that follow the application
process described above to monitor and report their NOX mass
emissions for each ozone season using alternative monitoring
requirements.
    In EPA's March 8, 2019, rulemaking amending the NOX SIP
Call's monitoring requirements at 40 CFR 51.121(i)(4), EPA observed
that, under 40 CFR 51.121(i), the principal criterion for approval of
monitoring and reporting requirements for purposes of the
NOX SIP Call following the amendments would be that the
requirements must be sufficient to determine whether sources are in
compliance with the control measures adopted to achieve the required
emissions reductions.\5\ EPA noted that for purposes of demonstrating
the sufficiency of the monitoring and reporting requirements, a state
generally would be able to cite the same types of data (e.g., data
indicating substantial compliance margins) that EPA cited to support
finalizing the amendments to the NOX SIP Call
regulations.\6\ In addition, EPA pointed out the need to consider
whether the regulation contains provisions to avoid gaps in required
monitoring and whether any monitoring approach that uses emissions
factors is designed to avoid any bias toward understatement of
emissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 84 FR at 8428-29.
    \6\ Id. n.30.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Ohio's case, the relevant control measure is the collective cap
of 4,028 tons of ozone seasons NOX emissions established for
the set of existing and new non-EGUs in OAC rule 3745-14-01 paragraph
(D). As noted above, for the 2018 ozone season, Ohio's large non-EGUs
subject to this cap reported collective NOX emissions of 543
tons, indicating a compliance margin of more than six times recent
emissions levels.
    While the alternative monitoring requirements available under
Ohio's regulation would not provide the same degree of detailed
reporting or quality assurance as part 75 monitoring data, and may
therefore be more likely to overstate or understate actual emissions to
some degree, there is nothing in Ohio's regulation that suggests the
data obtained using the alternative monitoring methodologies would be
biased toward understatement of emissions. The regulation expressly
requires the use of the best available data, it calls for consideration
of both historical CEMS data and stack test results when establishing
source-specific emission factors, it requires periodic stack testing to
verify the continued representativeness of the approved emission
factors, and it includes provisions to address cases where an emission
factor is found to no longer be representative. Further, the regulation
requires procedures to account for emissions during periods of missing
or inaccurate data and procedures to avoid data gaps during the
transition from 40 CFR part 75 monitoring to alternative monitoring.
Given the substantial compliance margin in this instance, EPA believes
that the data monitored and reported under Ohio's alternative
monitoring requirements would be sufficient to determine whether the
state's large non-EGUs are in compliance with their collective
emissions cap.
    EPA proposes to find that, as revised, OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-
14-04 and 3745-14-08 meet the state's ongoing obligations under the
NOX SIP Call with respect to existing and new large non-
EGUs. Specifically, we propose to find that the revised rules meet the
requirement under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) for enforceable limits on the
units' collective emissions of ozone season NOX mass
emissions and the requirement under 40 CFR 51.121(i)(1) for monitoring
sufficient to ensure compliance with those limits. The state's EGUs are
currently complying with their analogous NOX SIP Call
requirements through participation in the CSAPR Update trading program
for ozone season NOX.
    EPA is proposing to find that Ohio EPA's revisions at OAC Chapter
3745-14 are consistent with applicable requirements under the CAA and
the NOX SIP Call, and EPA is therefore proposing to approve
these changes into the Ohio SIP.

B. Section 110(l) Demonstration

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's request to
approve updated rules related to the NOX SIP Call into its
SIP. Ohio EPA's submission includes a noninterference demonstration
intended to show that its SIP revision is approvable under Section
110(l) of the CAA; such a demonstration is sometimes called an anti-
backsliding demonstration. Section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot
approve a SIP revision if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
Additionally, section 110(l) makes clear that each SIP revision is
subject to the requirements of section 110(l). As such, EPA will only
approve a SIP revision that removes or modifies control measures in the
SIP if the state has demonstrated that such removal or modification
would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, RFP,
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA generally considers
whether the SIP revision would worsen, preserve, or improve the status
quo in air quality.
    For the reasons explained below, we find that EPA's proposed action
to update the provisions relating to the NOX SIP Call
satisfies the requirements of CAA section 110(l). As explained above,
this action would not alter the NOX SIP Call emission
budgets that limit emissions in the state. The alternate monitoring
requirements at OAC Chapter 3745-14 are permanent, enforceable and
sufficient to determine whether Ohio's sources are in compliance with
the control measures adopted to meet the NOX SIP Call's
emissions requirements. Given continued implementation of SIP
requirements governing the unchanged amounts of allowable emissions,
accompanied by replacement monitoring requirements sufficient to ensure
compliance with the unchanged emissions requirements, this SIP revision
is not expected to result in increases in emissions that could
interfere with other statutory or regulatory requirements. Importantly,
the substitute measure ensures compliance with the existing
NOX SIP Call budgets and thus will preserve the status quo
in air quality. For these reasons, we conclude that the revisions will
not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, RFP, or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA.
    For the reasons explained above, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio
EPA's SIP submission under section 110(l) of the CAA.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio EPA's request to modify its SIP to
include the revisions at OAC Chapter 3745-14.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08, with a
state-effective date of August 22, 2019. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

    Dated: October 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-23704 Filed 11-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19180]
[DOCID:fr13ap06-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-320-067]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

April 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South) filed with the Commission a negotiated rate contract
between Gulf South and Atmos Energy Resources Corp., (Atmos), Contract
No. 29865, effective April 1, 2006.
    Gulf South states that copies of the filing have been served upon
all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC.
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5456 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35647-35649]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0142; Product Identifier 2016-SW-013-AD; Amendment
39-18979; AD 2017-16-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Agusta
S.p.A. Model A109S helicopters. This AD requires adding limitations to
the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM). This AD was prompted by a report of
a cabin liner detaching from the helicopter and hitting the main rotor
(M/R) blades during flight. The actions of this AD are intended to
prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge,
100, 21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo;
telephone 39-0331-664757; fax 39 0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0142; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket

contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>)
is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 10, 2017, at 82 FR 17156, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Agusta S.p.A. Model
A109S helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require, within 15 hours time-
in-service, revising the Limitations section of the RFM by inserting a
copy of this AD or by making pen-and-ink changes to add several
limitations: Prohibiting flight with a passenger cabin sliding door
opened or removed for helicopters with Internal Arrangement part number
(P/N) 109-0814-21-101 installed; prohibiting flight with a passenger
cabin sliding door open unless modification P/N 109-0814-35 is
installed; prohibiting flight with a passenger cabin sliding door open
unless the doors are locked; establishing a maximum VNE with
a passenger cabin sliding door opened or removed; establishing a
maximum airspeed for opening or closing a passenger cabin sliding door
during flight; and prohibiting instrument flight rule operation with
any door opened or removed.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2015-0227, dated November 19, 2015,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the
AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model A109S helicopters. EASA advises of a report
that the right-hand lower cabin liner of Internal Arrangement P/N 109-
0814-21-101 detached and hit three M/R blades during a landing with the
right-hand door removed. EASA states that this condition, if not
corrected, could lead to further occurrences of in-flight lower cabin
liner detachment, possibly resulting in damage to or loss of control of
the helicopter. Therefore, the EASA AD requires revising the RFM to
provide limitations on flights with a passenger cabin sliding door
opened or removed. EASA considers its AD an interim action and states
further AD action may follow.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    This helicopter has been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of the same type design and that air
safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as
proposed.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD to be an interim action. The design approval
holder is currently developing a modification that will address the
unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is
developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional
rulemaking.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed AgustaWestland A109S RFM, Document No. 109G0040A013,
Issue 2, Revision 3, dated April 23, 2015, which adds several
limitations regarding flight with a passenger cabin sliding door opened
or removed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 19 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour,
revising the RFM takes about 0.5 work-hour, for an estimated cost of
$43 per helicopter, or $817 for the U.S. fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-16-02 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-18979; Docket No. FAA-2017-
0142; Product Identifier 2016-SW-013-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model A109S helicopters, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as detachment of an
internal arrangement lower cabin liner. This condition could result
in damage to a main rotor blade and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 5, 2017.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 15 hours time-in-service, revise Section 1 Limitations of
the AgustaWestland Model A109S Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) by
inserting a copy of this AD into the RFM or by making pen-and-ink
changes to add the information in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this
AD.

                        Figure 1 to Paragraph (e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight with either one or both passenger cabin sliding doors opened or
 removed is prohibited if Internal Arrangement P/N 109-0814-21-101 is
 installed.
Flight with either one or both passenger cabin sliding doors opened is
 prohibited if passenger door modification P/N 109-0814-35 is not
 installed.
Flight with one or both passenger cabin sliding doors opened is allowed
 only with the doors locked.
VNE with any passenger cabin sliding door opened or removed: 75 KIAS.
Maximum airspeed for passenger cabin sliding doors opening or closing:
 50 KIAS.
IFR operation is prohibited with any door opened or removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    Incorporating the changes contained in AgustaWestland A109S RFM,
Document No. 109G0040A013, Issue 2, Revision 3, dated April 23,
2015, into Section 1 of the RFM before the effective date of this AD
is considered acceptable for compliance with this AD.

(g) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior
Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft
Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) AgustaWestland A109S RFM Document No. 109G0040A013, Issue 2,
Revision 3, dated April 23, 2015, which is not incorporated by
reference, contains additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact
AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100,
21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone
39-0331-664757; fax 39 0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review a copy of
the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0227, dated November 19, 2015. You
may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FAA-2017-0142.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2500, Cabin
Equipment/Furnishings.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 25, 2017.
Scott A. Horn,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16144 Filed 7-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P