[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33129-33136]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0224; Amendment Nos. 23-61, 25-134, 27-46, and 29-
53]
RIN 2120-AJ57

Airworthiness Standards; Electrical and Electronic System
Lightning Protection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends the lightning
protection airworthiness standards by establishing new lightning
protection regulations for electrical and electronic systems installed
on aircraft certificated under parts 23, 27, and 29, and revises
lightning protection regulations for electrical and electronic systems
installed on airplanes certificated under part 25. This rule
establishes two levels of lightning protection for aircraft systems
based on consequences of system function failure: Catastrophic
consequences which would prevent continued safe flight and landing; and
hazardous or major consequences which would reduce the capability of
the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse
operating condition. This rule also establishes lightning protection
for aircraft systems according to the aircraft's potential for
lightning exposure. The airworthiness standards establish consistent
lightning protection requirements for aircraft electrical and
electronic systems.

DATES: These amendments become effective August 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Nguyen, AIR-130, Federal Aviation
Administration, Suite 4102, 470 L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701(a)(1). Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to promote
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing minimum
standards in the interest of safety for appliances and for the design,
material, construction, quality of work, and performance of aircraft,
aircraft engines, and propellers. This regulation is within the scope
of that authority by prescribing standards to protect aircraft
electrical and electronic systems from the effects of lightning.

I. Background and History

    Existing regulations for the lightning protection of electrical and
electronic systems installed on aircraft certificated under parts 23,
27 and 29 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) require the
type certification applicant only to ``consider'' the effects of
lightning. Unlike system lightning protection regulations for part 25
airplanes, these regulations have not been significantly amended since
they were first adopted, and do not reflect current advances in
technology. Adopted in the 1960s, these regulations require that the
aircraft be protected against catastrophic effects of lightning, but do
not have specific requirements for electrical and electronic system
lightning protection. At the time, most aircraft contained mechanical
systems, or simple electrical and electronic systems. Airframe
components were made from aluminum materials, with high electrical
conductivity, and offered good protection against lightning.
    The early 1980s ushered in part 25 transport airplane designs that
routinely included more complex electrical and electronic systems. In
addition, there has been a trend for increased use of composite
aircraft materials with less inherent lightning protection than
aluminum. As electrical and electronic systems became more common on
part 25 airplanes, the FAA issued Sec.  25.1316 on April 28, 1994 (59
FR 22112), specifically requiring protection for electrical and
electronic systems on part 25 transport category airplanes.

A. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    The NPRM, Notice No. 10-05, published in the Federal Register on
April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16676), is the basis for this final rule. In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed to establish type certification standards for
lightning protection of electrical and electronic systems for aircraft
certificated under parts 23, 27 and 29, equivalent to those found in
part 25. At the same time, the NPRM proposed to revise Sec.  25.1316
for transport category airplanes to be consistent in format with the
proposed regulatory text for parts 23, 27 and 29. Overall, the NPRM
proposed to establish lightning protection standards for aircraft
systems according to the consequences of the failure of the functions
they provide, and according to the aircraft's potential for lightning
exposure.
    The NPRM proposed the establishment of consistent performance
standards for lightning protection of aircraft electrical and
electronic systems against the catastrophic, hazardous or major
failures of the functions these systems provide. The standards for
protection against catastrophic failure would require an applicant to
show that the function that the system performs would not be adversely
affected during or after the time the aircraft is exposed to lightning,
and that the system that was affected would automatically recover
normal operation of that function in a timely manner after the aircraft
is exposed to lightning. The standards for protection against hazardous
or major failure would require the applicant to show that the affected
function would recover normal operation in a timely manner after the
aircraft is exposed to lightning.
    The performance standards would also be imposed according to the
aircraft's potential for exposure to lightning. The standards for all
aircraft operated under instrument flight rules would meet more
stringent requirements than aircraft certificated to part 23 and part
27 standards approved solely for operations under visual flight rules.
This proposal ensured that protection would be applied to aircraft
according to their potential for exposure to lightning.
    The comment period for the NPRM ended on July 1, 2010.

B. Summary of the Final Rule

    The final rule adopts all the standards proposed in the NPRM, with
one exception. We chose not to adopt proposed paragraph (b)(1) to
Sec. Sec.  23.1306, 25.1316, 27.1316 and 29.1316, which required that
the system must not be damaged after exposure to lightning for systems
with hazardous or major failure conditions. We discuss the reasons for
this decision later in this document.

C. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received 17 comments from 8 commenters, including
manufacturers, international aviation standards associations, and the
European Aviation Safety Agency. All the commenters generally supported
the proposed changes to parts 23, 25, 27 and 29. We discuss the
comments in more detail below.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The FAA received comments on the following general areas of the
proposal:
     Requirement that ``the system must not be damaged'' for
systems with hazardous or major failure conditions;
     ``Indirect'' and ``direct'' effects of lightning;
     Requirement for automatic system recovery of the function
with catastrophic failure conditions;
     Automatic system recovery of the function with hazardous
failure conditions;
     Provide more guidance on ``in a timely manner'';
     Resolve conflict regarding systems providing multiple
functions;
     Guidance on acceptable means of compliance;
     Definition of ``catastrophic'', ``hazardous'', and ``major
failure conditions''.
    Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule, as it relates to
the substantive comments the FAA received to the NPRM.

Requirement That ``The System Must Not be Damaged'' for Systems With
Hazardous or Major Failure Conditions

    The FAA proposed for Sec. Sec.  23.1306, 25.1316, 27.1316 and
29.1316, in paragraph (b)(1), that each electrical and electronic
system that performs a function, for which failure would reduce the
capability of the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew to respond
to an adverse operating condition, must be designed and installed so
that the system is not damaged after the aircraft is exposed to
lightning.
    The SAE International AE-2 Lightning Committee, Cessna Aircraft
Company, Garmin International, and an individual commenter asked that
the FAA delete paragraph (b)(1). The SAE AE-2 Lightning Committee and
Cessna expressed concern that the proposal would not reflect a
codification of current industry practices as characterized by the FAA.
The SAE AE-2 Committee and the individual commenter also expressed
concern that the proposal would: (1) Have a significant economic impact
on the production of aircraft that use multiple redundant antennas for
radio systems performing functions required to comply with paragraph
(b)(1); and (2) reflect a significant change to the existing system
lightning protection regulations.
    The commenters explained that although lightning commonly attaches
to antennas, these systems use redundant, spatially separated antennas
so that a single lightning strike will not damage more than a single
antenna and its associated radio system. If paragraph (b)(1) were
adopted, significant changes would be required for radio and antenna
installation design. Specifically, aircraft designers and installers
would have to install external sensors (e.g., antennas, air data
probes) that will not be damaged by lightning strikes, and thus enable
the system to remain recoverable after the lightning event. Such
sensors are generally heavier, more complex, and more costly than
current sensor systems. The commenters stated that such sensors are
unnecessary, since using redundant and spatially separated antennas for
radio systems provide effective lightning protection for these systems.
The SAE AE-2 Committee pointed out that the FAA did not properly
consider the economic impact of paragraph (b)(1) in its analysis.
    After careful consideration of the points raised by the commenters,
we have concluded that proposed paragraph (b)(1) should not be adopted.
When we originally developed paragraph (b)(1), we did so in response to
a recommendation from the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working
Group (EEHWG) of the Transport Airplane and Engines Issues Group under
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which assumed that a
lightning strike to these systems would cause damage resulting in the
unrecoverable loss of the function, even if the system included
redundant elements to maintain system integrity and availability. Under
this assumption, the systems could no longer perform their intended
functions, which would reduce the capability of the aircraft or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition.
    The commenters showed that the EEHWG incorrectly assumed that loss
of a function (caused by lightning damage) performed by a system
equipped with external sensors such as radio antennas and air data
probes--which are occasionally damaged by lightning--would be
unrecoverable. If the proposed rule had been adopted, designers and
manufacturers would no longer be able to use sensor separation as a
means of compliance. Thus the rule change would have eliminated a means
of compliance that is acceptable under the current regulatory scheme.
    Garmin further commented that, if adopted, the proposed paragraph
(b)(1) would have the unintended effect of requiring excessive
lightning protection. Garmin explained that systems performing
functions with hazardous or major failure consequences may include
systems that perform other functions for which the failure would have
minor consequences or even no safety effect. Garmin suggested that the
proposed standard should be required for only those functions having
hazardous or major failure consequences similar to that provided in
proposed paragraph (b)(2), which requires each electrical and
electronic system that performs a function, for which failure would
reduce the capability of the aircraft or the ability of the flightcrew
to respond to an adverse operating condition, be designed and installed
so that the function recovers normal operation in a timely manner after
the aircraft is exposed to lightning. The FAA acknowledges Garmin's
point that paragraph (b)(1) may be subject to this kind of unintended
interpretation.
    For these reasons, we have determined that the proposed paragraph
(b)(1) would not serve the purpose that we had intended and should not
be adopted. Further, this requirement would limit the approaches that
aircraft system designers may use to show that the design and
installation meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(2). As proposed,
this provision will have no impact on safety because paragraph (b)(2)
will require that the ``function'' must recover in a timely manner
after lightning exposure. Garmin's concern over unintended
interpretations, as well as the individual commenter's concern for
additional cost impact are resolved by our decision not to adopt this
proposal.
    Finally, Cessna recommended that the FAA revise the proposed
requirement of ``system must not be damaged after the airplane is
exposed to lightning'' to ``system is installed such that damage to the
system is minimized as a result of the airplane being exposed to
lightning.''
    The FAA disagrees. The term ``minimized'' would require a
subjective evaluation of the damage, and defeat our purpose to provide
an objective measure of system lightning protection effectiveness.

Indirect Effects and Direct Effects of Lightning

    The SAE AE-2 Lightning Committee commented that the proposed
regulatory text did not use the phrase ``indirect effects of
lightning,'' although the phrase is used in current Sec.  23.1309(e)
and AC 20-136A, ``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/Electronic Systems
Against the Indirect Effects of Lightning.'' The commenter stated that
this omission may cause confusion when considering regulations such as
Sec.  27.610, which is intended to address the ``direct effects of
lightning.''
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's point that the terms

``indirect'' and ``direct'' were not used in the regulatory text,
although they are often used to classify the specific effects of
lightning. The phrases ``direct effects of lightning'' and ``indirect
effects of lightning'' generally refer to the mechanism in which
lightning affects electrical and electronic systems or functions.
Direct effects are typically associated with the actual lightning
attachment to the airframe or electrical and electronic system external
sensors which can cause damage in the form of burning, blasting, or
deformation. Conversely, indirect effects are those caused by lightning
energy that is electrically coupled into electrical and electronic
equipment and its associated wiring. The performance standards address
protection of aircraft electrical and electronic systems when exposed
to lightning based on the consequences of failure of the functions that
the systems perform. The regulations, as adopted, are not intended to
differentiate between how the effects of lightning are caused, but are
instead directed at the continued performance of the system or
function.
    The commenter also asserted that the performance standards do not
reflect current industry practices or regulatory requirements. The FAA
disagrees; these performance standards are consistent with the existing
Sec. Sec.  23.1309(e), 25.1316, 27.1309(d), and 29.1309(h). These
regulations refer to the effects of lightning in general, not to
``indirect effects'' of lightning exclusively. The existing Sec.
23.1309(e), specifically states that both direct and indirect effects
of lightning must be considered. Section 25.1316 addresses protection
of the electrical and electronic systems against lightning. Sections
27.1309(d) and 29.1309(h) require that the effects of lightning strikes
on the rotorcraft must be considered. Accordingly, the performance
standards established by this rulemaking are consistent with existing
regulations and industry practice.
    The commenter also stated that the proposed rules should specify
that the requirement refers to ``indirect effects of lightning'' to be
consistent with AC 20-136A. In fact, the AC addresses both indirect and
direct effects of lightning. The AC does not, however, describe the
methods for showing compliance if an electrical or electronic system is
subject to direct lightning attachment (direct effects). It refers to
other documents, such as SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP) 5416,
Aircraft Lightning Test Methods, for methods to show compliance for
direct effects. Nonetheless, the AC does speak to the need for the
applicant to address the direct effects of lightning on electrical and
electronic systems.
    Finally, the commenter stated that the proposed rules would require
a change in approach if they apply to the direct effects of lightning,
as the proposed rules stated that essential systems must not be damaged
after the aircraft is exposed to lightning. As discussed previously,
the FAA has decided not to adopt the proposed requirement of paragraph
(b)(1). This decision resolves this commenter's concern.

Requirement for Automatic System Recovery of the Function With
Catastrophic Failure Conditions

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed paragraph (a)(2), which required that
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function for
which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of
the aircraft must be designed and installed so that the system
automatically recovers normal operation of that function in a timely
manner after the aircraft is exposed to lightning. In part, this
proposal was based on EEHWG recommendation submitted to the FAA. That
recommendation also contained a relieving clause which allowed the
requirement for ``automatic and timely recovery'' to be disregarded if
the automatic and timely recover would interfere with continued
performance of other operational or functional requirements of the
system.
    We omitted the relieving clause in the proposal published in the
NPRM, which in effect made automatic and timely recovery compulsory.
After careful review of the EEHWG's recommendation for an exception to
the ``automatic and timely recovery'' requirement, we could not justify
its inclusion because we could not find any real-world example where
this provision would apply. Also, the phrase ``unless this conflicts
with other operational or functional requirements of that system''
provides no objective definition of operational or functional
requirements for the system. Finally, we were unable to develop
standards that would ensure an equivalent level of safety should the
exception be adopted.
    The SAE AE-2 Lightning Committee commented on the FAA's decision to
eliminate the relieving clause. It stated that (1) this clause would
not decrease safety as long as the function is maintained, and (2) some
systems do exist that, due to other functional or operational
requirements, cannot recover automatically without flightcrew action:
Such as attitude and heading reference systems, fly-by-wire flight
controls, and brake-by-wire systems. The committee submitted, as an
example of a system mode change that requires flightcrew action, the
Falcon 7X fly-by-wire control system for which the flightcrew has to
trigger normal mode recovery from a backup mode after the aircraft is
exposed to lightning.
    The FAA has considered the reasons and examples provided and has
concluded that they do not present scenarios that adequately justify
the need for including the recommended exception. Paragraph (a)(1)
requires that functions with catastrophic failure conditions are ``not
adversely affected'' by lightning. A system mode change caused by
lightning, that requires flightcrew action, would be evaluated
according to existing guidance and practices to determine whether it is
an adverse effect. As such, the examples provided would be evaluated to
determine if the function was ``adversely effected'' under paragraph
(a)(1), and do not justify an exception clause to paragraph (a)(2).
    Further, the commenters did not suggest any objective standard for
what should occur in the event of an exception, should we adopt the
exception clause. Therefore, we will not change the regulatory text
based on the comment.

Automatic System Recovery of the Function With Hazardous Failure
Conditions

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require that systems having the
potential for hazardous failure consequences must recover normal
operation of the function in a timely manner after the aircraft is
exposed to lightning.
    Airbus commented that the FAA should require the higher standard of
automatic recovery for hazardous failure conditions because it would
help to avoid situations where the pilot has to manually recover from
multiple failures with hazardous classification.
    After consideration, the FAA has decided against the Airbus
suggestion. The standard gives certification applicants the flexibility
to choose automatic or pilot-initiated recovery for functions with
hazardous failure conditions. This standard is consistent with the
existing Sec.  25.1316(b) and with prior special conditions, both of
which have provided a satisfactory level of safety.

Guidance on ``In a Timely Manner''

    Garmin asked that the FAA provide more guidance on what constitutes
``in a timely manner.'' It suggested the

following paragraph should have been inserted into the NPRM preamble:

    ``The term `in a timely manner,' when used for recovery of
catastrophic, hazardous, and major functions, is referring to the
length of time the function(s) may be lost before it would be
considered catastrophic, hazardous, or major. For major and
hazardous functions, crew interaction is allowed in the recovery of
the function. The FAA would determine what constitutes `timely'
automatic recovery on a case-by-case evaluation for failure of any
specific function and its failure effect on the aircraft, pilot
workload, and safety margins.''

    The FAA has determined that the phrase ``in a timely manner'' does
not lend itself to a generic description since it is dependent upon
various factors such as the function performed by the system being
evaluated, the specific system design, interaction between systems, and
interaction between the system and the flight crew. The FAA agrees that
we will determine what constitutes ``timely recovery'' on a case-by-
case evaluation based on engineering and flight crew assessment of the
specific function and its failure effects. Should consideration of
additional factors be appropriate, the FAA would consider those as
well. Since the Garmin's comment addresses the preamble to the NPRM, no
change to the final regulations is required.

Resolve Conflict Regarding Systems Providing Multiple Functions

    Garmin commented that there is a conflict between the two following
paragraphs in the NPRM preamble:

    ``For systems that provide one or more functions, the proposal
would require the system to automatically recover normal operations
of those functions for which failure could be catastrophic. Other
functions would not be required to return to normal operation* * *''
and ``The proposed requirements for protection against hazardous or
major failure would require the applicant to show that the system
would not be damaged, and the function would recover normal
operation in a timely manner after the aircraft is exposed to
lightning.''

    The FAA agrees with Garmin, and clarifies that the other functions
would not be required to ``automatically'' return to normal operation.

Guidance on Acceptable Means of Compliance

    Garmin, in their comment, was concerned with the means of
compliance for these proposed regulations. Garmin proposed that the
following paragraph should be added to the preamble of the NPRM:

    ``The term `after the airplane is exposed to lightning' is not
intended to mean that all systems regardless of criticality are
required to meet the transient levels resulting from the most severe
lightning strike to the aircraft (200kA). When the rule or text in
the preamble refers to systems or functions needing to meet
requirements `after the airplane is exposed to lightning,' the
development of the transient levels at the system/equipment
interfaces can take into account the criticality of the system/
equipment. Further guidance is provided in AC 20-136A.''

    Since this comment addresses the preamble of the NPRM, there is no
need for a change in the regulatory text. However, the NPRM preamble
wording cited by Garmin is not about lightning induced transient
characteristics, but focuses on lightning protection requirements for
systems and functions. These regulations do not define a specific means
of compliance. AC 20-136A provides guidance on an acceptable means of
compliance for lightning induced transient characteristics at the
system interfaces, which addresses Garmin's concerns.

Definitions of Catastrophic, Hazardous, and Major Failure Conditions

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) generally concurred with
the FAA's proposed requirements, but suggested new wording that
combined existing EASA regulation requirements for electrical and
electronic system lightning protection with the FAA's wording.
    The FAA has decided not to adopt EASA's proposed revision because
the FAA's regulatory text more clearly emphasizes that lightning
protection must ensure the continued performance of the system
functions. Adopting the regulatory text proposed by EASA would not
further the FAA's intent to place the emphasis on protecting the
function. In addition, the FAA's adopted regulatory text is consistent
with that used in the High-Intensity Radio Frequency regulations
(Sec. Sec.  23.1307, 25.1317, 27.1317, and 29.1317), which clearly
emphasizes the need to protect the functions performed by the systems
more than the systems themselves.

Miscellaneous Issues

    The SAE AE-2 Committee commented that in the proposed Sec.
29.1316(b), the term ``airplane'' should be ``rotorcraft''. The FAA
agrees and adopts this change.
    One individual recommended that the FAA mandate the calibration of
precision tools that are used to return an aircraft to service, because
it is important to ensure that a positive crimp, torque or connection
is made. This comment does not address any requirements that were
proposed in the NPRM and is outside the scope of the proposed rules.
Therefore, we do not make any regulatory changes based on the comment.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

International Compatibility

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

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
    costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory
changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-
39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impact of the final rule.

    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble. Such a
determination has been made for this final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows: In a cost survey of
industry conducted by the FAA, six of the seven replying firms reported
no incremental cost from the provisions included in this final rule.
One firm reported ``little or no cost.'' The reason for little or no
incremental cost is that these firms (six out of seven) reported usage
of Advisory Circular AC 20-136A, ``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/
Electronic Systems Against the Indirect Effects of Lightning,'' as
guidance for complying with lightning requirements. Consequently, these
firms are already in compliance with the final rule as it represents a
codification of current practices. For manufacturers of Part 25
airplanes, cost changes should be minimal in any case, as the changes
in the final rule are clarifying only. Moreover, four of the seven
respondents reported at least some expected benefits from the
provisions included in this final rule (See ``Benefits'' section
below). We did receive comments that one requirement would raise costs.
The FAA removed this requirement. The FAA therefore has determined that
this final rule will have minimal costs with positive net benefits and
does not warrant a full regulatory evaluation. Our analysis follows
below.
    The FAA has also determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Rulemaking
    As noted above, there are little or no expected costs for this
final rule and some benefits. The benefits result in increased safety.
The benefits therefore justify the costs. See details in the separate
costs and benefits sections below.
Who is potentially affected by this rulemaking?
    Manufacturers of parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft and
manufacturers of electrical and electronic systems for those aircraft.
Assumptions and Sources of Information
     We use a ten-year period of analysis, 2009-2018.
     Data on costs of compliance and benefits of this rule were
obtained from an FAA survey of industry.
     Firms are defined as ``small'' or ``large'' using Small
Business Administration (SBA) size standards (U.S. SBA. Table of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry
Classification System Codes, July 21, 2006).
Costs of This Rulemaking
    On February 9, 2009, we sent a detailed cost survey to six
manufacturers of Parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft and three
manufacturers of electrical and electronic systems for those aircraft.
In addition to several detailed cost questions, the survey also asked
one question about potential benefits from the provisions included in
this final rule. We received four responses to this initial survey. On
March 17, 2009, we resurveyed the five non-respondents and, after
additional follow-up requests, received three additional replies,
although the last response came only on August 8, 2009. The seven
responses we received were from manufacturers ranging from a small
aircraft manufacturer (less than 1,500 employees) to the largest U.S.
aircraft manufacturer. Despite repeated requests, we received no survey
responses from the two part 27/part 29 manufacturers to whom we sent
questionnaires, one never replying and the other eventually replying
that management had ``decided not to respond.''
    We did receive comments that the proposed paragraph (b)(1) would
create costs. The FAA agrees and removes this requirement.
    As shown in the table below, the respondents indicated little or no
cost from the provisions included in this final rule.

                                         Summary of Cost Survey Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firm                 Type            Products certified to           Costs                 Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Part 23...............  No cost...............  ``The certification
                                                                                process will be less
                                                                                ambiguous and
                                                                                slightly streamlined
                                                                                by writing some of
                                                                                the AC 20-136A
                                                                                requirements directly
                                                                                into the
                                                                                regulations.''
B...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Parts 23 & 25.........  No cost...............  ``The commonality
                                                                                between parts and the
                                                                                ability to use the
                                                                                same substantiation
                                                                                across product lines
                                                                                is a very large
                                                                                benefit.''
C...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Parts 23 & 25.........  No cost...............  ``Harmonization of
                                                                                Part 23 and Part 25
                                                                                rules will simplify
                                                                                our certification
                                                                                process as our
                                                                                internal procedures
                                                                                benefit from any
                                                                                similarity of the two
                                                                                Parts.''
D...............  Airplane manufacturer.  Part 25...............  Little or no cost.....  No response to
                                                                                benefits question.
E...............  Electrical/electronic   Parts 23 & 25.........  No cost...............  ``NA.''
                   systems mfr.
F...............  Electrical/electronic   Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29  No cost...............  ``None.''
                   systems mfr.
G...............  Electrical/electronic   Parts 23, 25, 27, & 29  No cost...............  ......................
                   systems mfr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of This Rulemaking
    As supported by the responses to the benefits question, shown in
the table, the final rule and the standardization of rule language
across parts will reduce firm costs by simplifying and clarifying the
certification process.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, in a cost survey of industry, the FAA found little
or no expected costs from this final rule. The reason for this finding
is that all but one respondent reported usage of AC 20-136A,
``Protection of Aircraft Electrical/Electronic Systems Against the
Indirect Effects of Lightning,'' as guidance for complying with system
lightning requirements. We agree that the requirements of proposed
paragraph (b)(1) would have an unintended effect and raise costs. The
FAA removed this paragraph. Accordingly, this final rule represents
current practice and imposes no more requirements than those previously
voluntarily adopted by industry by following AC 20-136A. Consequently,
these firms are already in compliance with the final rule as it
represents a codification of AC 20-136A. For manufacturers of Part 25
airplanes, cost changes should, in any case, be minimal as the changes
in the final rule are clarifying only. Therefore as the FAA
Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has reviewed the
potential effect of this final rule and determined that the standards
adopted by this rulemaking are based on internationally harmonized
recommended regulations and compliance means and, thus, they do not
create an obstacle to foreign commerce. For this reason, the FAA has
determined that the standards adopted by this final rulemaking will
comply with the Trade Agreements Act.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $140.8 million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

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

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 308 (c)(1) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations--policies/or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the amendment or docket number of this rulemaking.

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add new Sec.  23.1306 to read as follows:

Sec.  23.1306  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the airplane, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the airplane is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.
    (b) For airplanes approved for instrument flight rules operation,
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for
which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal
operation in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to
lightning.

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

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

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

0
4. Revise Sec.  25.1316 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.1316  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the airplane, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the airplane is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to lightning.
    (b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would reduce the capability of the airplane or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal
operation in a timely manner after the airplane is exposed to
lightning.

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
5. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

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

0
6. Amend Sec.  27.610 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  27.610   Lightning and static electricity protection.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of static electricity
on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic equipment.

Sec.  27.1309  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  27.1309 by removing paragraph (d).

0
8. Add a new Sec.  27.1316 to read as follows:

Sec.  27.1316  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the rotorcraft, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning.
    (b) For rotorcraft approved for instrument flight rules operation,
each electrical and electronic system that performs a function, for
which failure would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal
operation in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning.
0
9. Add paragraph X. to Appendix B of part 27 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 27--Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument
Flight

* * * * *
    X. Electrical and electronic system lightning protection. For
regulations concerning lightning protection for electrical and
electronic systems, see Sec.  27.1316.

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
10. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

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

0
11. Amend Sec.  29.610 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  29.610  Lightning and static electricity protection.

    (d) * * *
    (4) Reduce to an acceptable level the effects of static electricity
on the functioning of essential electrical and electronic equipment.

Sec.  29.1309  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  29.1309 by removing paragraph (h).

0
13. Add new Sec.  29.1316 to read as follows:

Sec.  29.1316  Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

    (a) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would prevent the continued safe flight and landing
of the rotorcraft, must be designed and installed so that--
    (1) The function is not adversely affected during and after the
time the rotorcraft is exposed to lightning; and
    (2) The system automatically recovers normal operation of that
function in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning.
    (b) Each electrical and electronic system that performs a function,
for which failure would reduce the capability of the rotorcraft or the
ability of the flightcrew to respond to an adverse operating condition,
must be designed and installed so that the function recovers normal
operation in a timely manner after the rotorcraft is exposed to
lightning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2011.
J. Randolph Babbitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-14142 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
Kaplan, Mary<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, February 12, 2021 3:29 PM
To:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Knight, Jeffrey A.'<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Coke - EPA responses to Model Shell File Review and emissions files

Good afternoon Gabrielle,

Please find the attached files with our comments.  If you have any questions, please let us know.

 Coke_2017-EIS-NEI_Noncategory-Other-Units_01282021_COETF Rev(2) 02-12-21.xlsx  -  Per Al Dittenhoefer's e-mail earlier this afternoon, we've noted where some sources/emissions are already accounted for in the byproducts plant emissions.  We had one additional comment concerning emergency engines with highly intermittent emissions.
 CokeOven_RTR_ModFile_COETFResp_122420_EPAResp_010521_COETFResp012221_EPAresp_01282021_COETF_021221.xlsx
 Provided responses in EPA 01-28-21 tab regarding Warren scrubber car and noted in Cell I135 that several boilers were incorrectly placed in the category tab.
 Revised stack parameters for the Warren scrubber car in Row 84 of the category tab based on updated information from the facility.
 Added scrubber car F' calculation to Tab 18.
 CokeOven_Category&NonCategory_RTR_ModFile_20210128_COETF_021021.xlsx
 Revised stack parameters for the Warren scrubber car in Row 64 of the category tab based on updated information from the facility.
 Noted where boilers on the category tab should be moved to the non-category tab in Column A of the category tab.
 Noted where the Process ID/Emission Unit Description is incorrect for EP-11 Doors as the descriptions do not apply to byproducts plants in Column B of the non-category tab.

We have no comments on the Coke_IIS_Modeling_Emissions.xlsx file.

Kind regards,

Mary Kaplan
Scientist IV, Air Quality and Engineering Studies
Environment
D 1.978.905.2260
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
AECOM
250 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, Massachusetts 01824
T 1.978.905.2100  F 1.978.905.2101 Cisco 1232260
www.aecom.com

<< Coke_2017-EIS-NEI_Noncategory-Other-Units_01282021_COETF responses rev_(2)_2-12-2021.xlsx >>
<< CokeOven_CategoryNonCategory_RTR_ModFile_20210128_COETF021021.xlsx >>
<< CokeOven_RTR_ModFile_COETFResp_122420_EPAResp_010521_COETFResp012221_EPAresp_01282021_COETF021221.xlsx >>

From: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:21 PM
To: Kaplan, Mary<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Knight, Jeffrey A.'<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Coke - EPA responses to Model Shell File Review and emissions files

Hello,

Thank you all for your latest round of review and comments.

Please see the attached five files for your information.
If you have any additional comments, please provide by Friday 2/5/2021.

#1 EPA responses to 1/22/2021 COETF modeling file shell comments
CokeOven_RTR_ModFile_COETFResp_122420_EPAResp_010521_COETFResp012221_EPAresp_01282021.xlsx

#2 Coke Category & Noncategory Modeling File Shell with cumulative COETF review changes made
CokeOven_Category&NonCategory_RTR_ModFile_20210128.xlsx

#3 Coke Enclosure 1&2 data and calculated emission factors with cumulative COETF review changes made
CokeOvens-Enclosure 1&2 QA-Whole IndustryTest Data-POST-Aug 2020_IndReview_1.26.2021.xlsx

#4 2017 EIS/NEI data to be used for Other Coke Units
Coke_2017-EIS-NEI_Noncategory-Other-Units_01282021.xlsx

#5 II&S modeling file data for applicable II&S units at coke facilities
Coke_IIS_Modeling_Emissions.xlsx

Please let us know if there are any questions.

Thank you again for all of your help!
Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond
she/her/hers
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register: February 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8659]
[DOCID:fr14fe08-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 516-452]

South Carolina Electric and Gas; Notice of Application for Non-
Project Use of Project Lands and Waters and Soliciting Comments,
Motions To Intervene, and Protests

February 7, 2008.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters.
    b. Project No.: 516-452.
    c. Date Filed: January 17, 2008.
    d. Applicant: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G).
    e. Name of Project: Saluda Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Saluda Hydroelectric Project is located in
Lexington County, near Columbia, South Carolina. The project does not
occupy any Tribal or federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)825(r) and
799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. James M. Landreth, SCE&G Mail Code: K61,
Columbia, South Carolina 29218.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Brian Romanek at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Filing Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protest:
March 7, 2008.
    k. Description of Request: SCE&G has requested Commission
authorization to issue a permit to Lighthouse Developments, Inc. to use
project lands and waters (Lake Murray) for a community marina that
would accommodate 84 watercraft. The marina would include a launch ramp
and parking lot. The marina would not include fuel-dispensing
equipment, electric service, or pump-out equipment.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. All documents
(original and eight copies) should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2728 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 114 (Thursday, June 15, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27419-27422]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3143; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-047-AD;
Amendment 39-18924; AD 2017-12-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(Embraer) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135
airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, -145EP,
and -145XR airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of chafing found
between the fuel pump electrical harness and the fuel pump tubing
during scheduled maintenance. This AD requires a detailed inspection
for chafing on the electrical harness of each electrical fuel pump in
the fuel tanks, replacement of the affected electrical fuel pump with a
new or serviceable pump if necessary, and installation of clamps on the
fuel pump electrical harnesses. We are issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 20, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 20,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-Putim-
12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos-SP-Brasil; telephone +55 12 3927-
5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.flyembraer.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3143.

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-2015-
3143; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135
airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, -145EP,
and -145XR airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on
August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51815) (``the SNPRM''). We preceded the SNPRM
with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the
Federal Register on August 21, 2015 (80 FR 50812) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM proposed to require a detailed inspection for chafing on the
electrical harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks,
replacement of the

affected electrical fuel pump with a new or serviceable pump if
necessary, and installation of clamps on the fuel pump electrical
harnesses. The NPRM was prompted by a report of chafing found between
the fuel pump electrical harness and the fuel pump tubing during
scheduled maintenance. The SNPRM proposed to require a detailed
inspection for chafing on the electrical harness of each electrical
fuel pump in the fuel tanks, replacement of the affected electrical
fuel pump with a new or serviceable pump if necessary, and installation
of clamps on the fuel pump electrical harnesses. The SNPRM also
proposed to require revising the NPRM by expanding the proposed
applicability and revising the compliance time for the detailed
inspection. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the
fuel pump harnesses with other parts inside the fuel tank, which could
present a potential ignition source that could result in a fire or fuel
tank explosion.
    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2015-03-01, effective March 23, 2015 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-135 airplanes and
Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    Chafing between the fuel pump electrical harness and fuel pump
tubing was detected during scheduled maintenance. We are issuing
this [Brazilian] AD to protect the fuel pump harnesses against
chafing with other parts inside the fuel tank, which could present a
potential ignition source that could result in a fire or fuel tank
explosion.

    The required actions include a detailed inspection for chafing on
the electrical harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks,
replacement of the affected electrical fuel pump with a new or
serviceable pump if necessary, and installation of clamps on the fuel
pump electrical harnesses. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3143.

Comments

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

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01,
dated October 22, 2010; and Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032,
Revision 01, dated November 20, 2012. The service information describes
procedures for a detailed inspection for chafing on the electrical
harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks, replacement of
the affected electrical fuel pump with a new or serviceable pump if
necessary, and installation of clamps on the fuel pump electrical
harnesses. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models. This service information 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

    We estimate that this AD affects 731 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and installation........  11 work-hours x $85 per                  $0            $935        $683,485
                                      hour = $935.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that will be required based on the results of the required inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
this replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement................................  6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510.         $11,242         $11,752
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on

products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

2017-12-09 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer):
Amendment 39-18924; Docket No. FAA-2015-3143; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-047-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 20, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-
135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -
145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, -145EP, and -145XR airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer Service
Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010.
    (2) Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-
135BJ airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in
Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November
20, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of chafing found between the
fuel pump electrical harness and the fuel pump tubing during
scheduled maintenance. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
chafing of the fuel pump harnesses with other parts inside the fuel
tank, which could present a potential ignition source that could
result in a fire or fuel tank explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Detailed Inspection and Corrective Action

    Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this
AD at the applicable times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for chafing on the electrical
harness of each electrical fuel pump in the fuel tanks, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service
Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010 (for Model
EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145,
-145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, -145EP, and -145XR airplanes); or
Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November
20, 2012 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes). If any chafing is found,
before further flight, replace the affected electrical fuel pump
with a new or serviceable pump having the same part number, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service
Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010; or
Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November
20, 2012; as applicable.
    (2) Install clamps on the fuel pump electrical harnesses, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service
Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated October 22, 2010 (for Model
EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145,
-145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, -145EP, and -145XR airplanes); or
Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated November
20, 2012 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes).

(h) Compliance Times

    (1) For Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes;
and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, -145EP, and -
145XR airplanes: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD within 5,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For Model EMB-135BJ airplanes: Do the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD within 4,800 flight hours or 48 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, dated
September 1, 2010 (for Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR
airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145MP, -
145EP, and -145XR airplanes); or Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-
0032, dated September 15, 2011 (for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes), as
applicable.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) 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
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC); or
ANAC's authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the
approval must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2015-03-01, effective March
23, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3143.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(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.
    (i) Embraer Service Bulletin 145-28-0030, Revision 01, dated
October 22, 2010.
    (ii) Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-28-0032, Revision 01, dated
November 20, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-
Putim-12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos-SP-Brasil; telephone +55
12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.flyembraer.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12168 Filed 6-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83235-83236]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27983]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0643; FRL 9955-41-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Donald van der Vaart, in
his official capacity as Secretary of North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (``NCDEQ''), and by NCDEQ (collectively
``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina: Donald van der Vaart, et al. v. McCarthy,
et al., No. 4:16-cv-01946-SBA (E.D. N.C.). On June 24, 2016, Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official
capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (``EPA'') failed to perform duties mandated by CAA to take final
action to approve or disapprove the December 9, 2013 Petition submitted
by several states within the Ozone Transport Region (``OTR'')
requesting EPA to expand the OTR to include North Carolina, among other
states. The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA
to take certain specified actions with respect to the December 9, 2013
Petition related to North Carolina.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by December 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0643, online at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The 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. The EPA
generally will 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: Alexander Bond, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    On June 24, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
that EPA failed to perform duties mandated by CAA to take final action
to approve or disapprove the December 9, 2013 Petition submitted by
several states within the OTR requesting EPA to expand the OTR pursuant
to 42 U.S.C 7506a(a) to include North Carolina and several other
states. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA must sign a
notice for public comment that proposes certain actions regarding the
December 9, 2013 Petition as to the State of North Carolina, no later
than January 18, 2017, and must sign a final

notice of final action regarding the petition as to North Carolina
thereon no later than October 27, 2017. See the proposed consent decree
for the specific details.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this proposed consent decree should
be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree.

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0643) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The
official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the
appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: November 7, 2016.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-27983 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13042-13043]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06484]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9991-59-OLEM]

FY 2019 Supplemental Funding for Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund
(RLF) Grantees

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the availability of funds.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to make
available approximately $8 million to provide supplemental funds to
Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) cooperative agreements previously awarded
competitively under section 104(k)(3) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). EPA
will consider awarding supplemental funding only to RLF grantees who
have demonstrated an ability to deliver programmatic results by making
at least one loan or subgrant. The award of these funds is based on the
criteria described at CERCLA 104(k)(5)(A)(ii).
    The Agency is now accepting requests for supplemental funding from
RLF grantees. Requests for funding must be submitted to the appropriate
EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator (listed below) by May 6, 2019.
Funding requests for hazardous substances and/or petroleum funding will
be accepted. Specific information on submitting a request for RLF
supplemental funding is described below and additional information may
be obtained by contacting the EPA Regional Brownfields Coordinator.

DATES: This action is applicable April 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: A request for supplemental funding must be in the form of a
letter addressed to the appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator
(see listing below) with a copy to Rachel Congdon,
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Congdon, U.S. EPA, (202) 566-
1564 or the appropriate Brownfields Regional Coordinator.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act added section 104(k) to CERCLA to authorize federal financial
assistance for brownfields revitalization, including grants for
assessment, cleanup and job training. Section 104(k) includes a
provision for EPA to, among other things, award grants to eligible
entities to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds and to provide loans and
subgrants for brownfields cleanup. Section 104(k)(5)(A)(ii) authorizes
EPA to make additional grant funds available to RLF grantees for any
year after the year for which the initial grant is made (noncompetitive
RLF supplemental funding) taking into consideration:
    (I) The number of sites and number of communities that are
addressed by the revolving loan fund;
    (II) the demand for funding by eligible entities that have not
previously received a grant under this subsection;
    (III) the demonstrated ability of the eligible entity to use the
revolving loan fund to enhance remediation and provide funds on a
continuing basis; and
    (IV) such other similar factors as the [Agency] considers
appropriate to carry out this subsection.

Eligibility

    In order to be considered for supplemental funding, grantees must
demonstrate that they have significantly depleted funds (both EPA grant
funding and any available program income) and that they have a clear
plan for utilizing requested additional funds in a timely manner.
Grantees must demonstrate that they have made at least one loan or
subgrant prior to applying for this supplemental funding and have
significantly depleted existing available funds. For FY2019, EPA
defines ``significantly depleted funds'' as uncommitted, available
funding is 25% or less of total RLF funds awarded under all open and
closed grants and cannot exceed $600,000. For new RLF recipients with
an award of $1 million or less, funds will be consider significantly
depleted if the uncommitted or available funding does not exceed
$300,000. Additionally, the RLF recipient must have demonstrated a need
for supplemental funding based on, among other factors, the list of
potential projects in the RLF program pipeline; demonstrated the
ability to make loans and subgrants for cleanups that can be started,
completed, and will lead to redevelopment; demonstrated the ability to
administer and revolve the RLF by generating program income;
demonstrated an ability to use the RLF grant to address funding gaps
for cleanup; and demonstrated that they have provided a community
benefit from past and potential loan(s) and/or subgrant(s). EPA
encourages innovative approaches to maximize revolving and leveraging
with other funds, including use of grants funds as a loan loss
guarantee, combining with other government or private sector lending
resources. Applicants for supplemental funding must contact the
appropriate Regional Brownfields Coordinator below to obtain
information on the format for supplemental funding applications for
their region. When requesting supplemental funding, applicants must
specify whether they are seeking funding for sites contaminated by
hazardous substances and/or petroleum. Applicants may request both
types of funding.

                                                Regional Contacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Region                                     States                           Address/phone No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region 1, Joe Ferrari,           CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT.........................  5 Post Office Square,
 [email protected].                                                                  Boston, MA 02109-3912,
                                                                                Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 2, Lya Theodoratos,       NJ, NY, PR, VI.................................  290 Broadway, 18th Floor,
 [email protected].                                                              New York, NY 10007, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 3, Brett Gilmartin,       DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV.........................  1650 Arch Street, Mail
 [email protected].                                                              Code 3HS51, Philadelphia,
                                                                                Pennsylvania 19103-2029,
                                                                                Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

EPA Region 4, Derek Street,          AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN.................  Atlanta Federal Center, 61
 [email protected].                                                                 Forsyth Street SW, 10TH
                                                                                FL , Atlanta, GA 30303-
                                                                                8960, Phone (404) 562-
                                                                                8574.
EPA Region 5, Keary Cragan,          IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI.........................  77 West Jackson Boulevard,
 [email protected].                                                                 Mail Code SB-5J, Chicago,
                                                                                Illinois 60604-3507,
                                                                                Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 6, Camisha Scott,         AR, LA, NM, OK, TX.............................  1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
 [email protected].                                                                1200 (6SF-PB), Dallas,
                                                                                Texas 75202-2733, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA Region 7, Susan Klein,           IA, KS, MO, NE.................................  11201 Renner Blvd, Lenexa,
 [email protected].                                                               Kansas 66219, Phone (913)
                                                                                551-7786.
EPA Region 8, Ted Lanzano,           CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY.........................  1595 Wynkoop Street (EPR-
 [email protected].                                                                  B), Denver, CO 80202-
                                                                                1129, Phone (303) 312-
                                                                                6596.
EPA Region 9, Noemi Emeric-Ford,     AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU.........................  75 Hawthorne Street, WST-
 [email protected].                                                            8, San Francisco, CA
                                                                                94105, Phone (213) 244-
                                                                                1821.
EPA Region 10, Susan Morales,        AK, ID, OR, WA.................................  1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite
 [email protected].                                                                900, Mailstop: ECL-112
                                                                                Seattle, WA 98101, Phone
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 25, 2019.
David R. Lloyd,
Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Office of Land
and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2019-06484 Filed 4-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P