[Federal Register: December 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 76806-76807]
[DOCID:fr28de05-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP05-360-000, CP05-357-000, CP05-358-000, and CP05-359-
000]

 Creole Trail LNG, L.P. and Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline;
Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Creole Trail LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project

December 16, 2005.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared this draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the construction and operation of the liquefied natural gas
(LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities, referred to
as the Creole Trail LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project (Creole Trail
Project) as proposed by Creole Trail LNG, L.P. and Cheniere Creole
Trail Pipeline (collectively referred to as Creole Trail) in the above-
referenced dockets.
    The draft EIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The staff concludes that
approval of the Creole Trail Project, with appropriate mitigating
measures as recommended, would have limited adverse environmental
impact. The draft EIS evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including
system alternatives, alternative sites for the LNG import terminal, and
pipeline alternatives. The draft EIS also contains our Essential Fish
Habitat Analysis.
    The purpose of the Creole Trail Project is to provide the
facilities necessary to meet growing demand for natural gas in the
United States by providing access to a reliable and stable supply of
natural gas from diverse areas of the world and to allow natural gas
delivery to the Gulf of Mexico coast, midwest, northeast, and Atlantic
markets using existing interstate and intrastate natural gas pipeline
systems.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following facilities in Cameron,
Calcasieu, Beauregard, Allen, Jefferson Davis, and Acadia Parishes,
Louisiana:
     A ship unloading slip with two protected berths, each
equipped with three liquid unloading arms and one vapor return arm;
     Four LNG storage tanks, each with a usable volume of
1,006,000 barrels (160,000 cubic meters (m\3\));
     Twenty-one high pressure LNG sendout pumps, each with a
capacity of 1,686 gallons per minute (384 m\3\ per hour);
     Twenty-one high pressure submerged combustion vaporizers,
each with a capacity of 183 million cubic feet per day;
     Three boil-off gas compressors;
     Ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities at
the LNG terminal;
     116.8 miles of dual 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline;
     6.8 miles of 20-inch-diameter lateral line natural gas
pipeline;
     18 meter and regulation facilities; and
     Associated pipeline facilities including pig launcher and
receiver facilities, two mainline valves (MLV) on the 20-inch-diameter
pipeline, and eight MLVs along each of the individual pipelines in the
dual pipeline system.

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To
expedite the FERC's receipt and consideration of your comments,
electronic submission of comments is strongly encouraged. See Title 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the FERC's Internet Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the eFiling link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can submit comments, you will need to create a
free account by clicking on ``Sign-up'' under ``New User.'' You will be
asked to select the type of submission you are making. This type of
submission is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' Comments submitted
electronically must be submitted by February 21, 2006.
    If you wish to mail comments on the draft EIS, please mail your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
February 21, 2006 and carefully follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Reference Docket No. CP05-357-000 et al. on the original
and both copies;
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2, PJ-11.2; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before February 21, 2006.
    After these comments have been reviewed, any significant new issues
are investigated, and modifications are made to the draft EIS, a final
EIS will be published and distributed by the staff. The final EIS will
contain the staff's responses to timely comments received on the draft
EIS.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Anyone may intervene in this proceeding
based on this draft EIS. You must file your request to intervene as
specified above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent hurricane activities have affected infrastructure in the
project area. In addition, the Commission has received relatively few
comments on the Creole Trail Project to date, and comments that were
received have been addressed in this draft EIS. For these reasons, the
staff does not plan to hold public comment meetings on the draft EIS
for the Creole Trail Project. If it is determined at a later date that
public meetings are necessary, a separate notice will be issued and
posted on the Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

    The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and
is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch,
888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A limited number of copies of the draft EIS are available from the
Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch identified above. In
addition, copies of the draft EIS have been mailed to Federal, state,
and local agencies; elected officials; public interest groups;
individuals and affected landowners who requested a copy of the draft
EIS; libraries; newspapers; and parties to these proceedings.

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY

at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet Web
site.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7915 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 13)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3428-3430]
[DOCID:fr18ja08-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0035; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-103-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft
Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200, Jetstream Series
3101, and Jetstream Model 3201 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Two incidents have been reported where the normal hydraulic
supplies were lost due to failure/loss of the steering jack gland
housing. This has been attributed to pre-existing thread damage on
the steering jack gland housing. Three previous failures may also be
due to this failure mechanism.
    Failure of the steering jack gland housing resulted in
significant damage to the right hand undercarriage bay door, and
could result in the nose landing gear jamming in a fully or
partially retracted position. Landing in such a condition is
considered as potentially unsafe due to the degraded control of the
aircraft post touch down.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 19,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0035;
Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-103-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2006-0128, dated May 18, 2006 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Two incidents have been reported where the normal hydraulic
supplies were lost due to failure/loss of the steering jack gland
housing. This has been attributed to pre-existing thread damage on
the steering jack gland housing. Three previous failures may also be
due to this failure mechanism.
    Failure of the steering jack gland housing resulted in
significant damage to the right hand undercarriage bay door, and
could result in the nose landing gear jamming in a fully or
partially retracted position. Landing in such a condition is
considered as potentially unsafe due to the degraded control of the
aircraft post touch down.
    Changes to the gland have been introduced in order to prevent
further recurrence.
    This proposed AD would require you to install a serviceable
steering jack.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the
AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    British Aerospace Regional Aircraft has issued British Aerospace
Jetstream Series 3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JM5417, Original
Issue: March 22, 2005. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the

MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD
because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 149 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $134,100, or $900 per product.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2008-0035;
Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-103-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 19, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream
Series 200, Jetstream Series 3101, and Jetstream Model 3201
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Two incidents have been reported where the normal hydraulic
supplies were lost due to failure/loss of the steering jack gland
housing. This has been attributed to pre-existing thread damage on
the steering jack gland housing. Three previous failures may also be
due to this failure mechanism.
    Failure of the steering jack gland housing resulted in
significant damage to the right hand undercarriage bay door, and
could result in the nose landing gear jamming in a fully or
partially retracted position. Landing in such a condition is
considered as potentially unsafe due to the degraded control of the
aircraft post touch down.
    Changes to the gland have been introduced in order to prevent
further recurrence.
    This AD would require you to install a serviceable steering
jack.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, install a serviceable steering jack that
has been modified following APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin 32-78, dated
February 2005, as specified in British Aerospace Jetstream Series
3100 and 3200 Service Bulletin 32-JM5417, Original Issue: March 22,
2005.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Taylor Martin, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2006-0128,

dated May 18, 2006; and British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 and
3200 Service Bulletin 32-JM5417, Original Issue: March 22, 2005, for
related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 11, 2008.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-824 Filed 1-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment: Commenter [ Docket entry IV D 05] is concerned that any overlap of the RCRA correction action remediation program and the Site Remediation NESHAP could create confusion and increase the potential for misapplication of the various requirements. Specifically, the commenter is concerned that the Site Remediation NESHAP could be applied to facilities undergoing RCRA corrective action as part of EPA's review and approval of a facility's proposed RCRA corrective action activities. The commenter requests EPA's acknowledgment that the Site Remediation NESHAP is a technology based standard that need not, and should not, be considered in evaluating proposed RCRA corrective action initiatives ( e. g., work plans and reports regarding, but not necessarily limited to, interim measures, RCRA facility investigations, corrective measures studies, corrective measures implementation, and corrective action monitoring). Response: Under applicability exemptions to the final Site Remediation NESHAP, remediation activities performed for a RCRA corrective action are not subject to the NESHAP if performed at a TSDF that is either permitted by the EPA or under a State program authorized by the EPA under RCRA section 3006; or required by an order imposed by the EPA or a State program authorized for corrective action under RCRA section 3006; or any facility as required by orders authorized under RCRA section 7003. Determination of the corrective action initiatives needed at a given facility is evaluated on a sitespecific basis through the RCRA corrective action program. We 61 do not believe their should be any confusion or misapplication of requirements since standards contained in the Site Remediation NESHAP are essentially the same as those contained in the existing RCRA air standards ( 40 CFR Part 264 and 265 subparts AA, BB and CC).

2.7.7 Rule Relationship to " Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement" under CERCLA Comment: Commenter [ Docket entry IV D 43] stated that although the proposed Site Remediation NESHAP would exempt site remediation activities that are undertaken using CERCLA authority, substantive requirements in the proposed NESHAP could arguably be considered an " Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement" ( ARAR) under CERCLA. Thus, even though the proposed regulation specifically exempts CERCLA remediation activities, it appears that the relevant portions of the rule would be applied because they address similar situations. To avoid inappropriate use of the Site Remediation NESHAP as an ARAR, the EPA should clearly state in the final rule that the requirements contained in the final rule are not relevant or appropriate for remediation activities conducted under CERCLA authority. Response: Determination of whether a particular requirement is relevant and appropriate is a site specific matter. Nothing in CERCLA requires EPA to declare categorically whether or not a particular requirement is relevant and appropriate at the time it is promulgated. Therefore, we decline the commenter's invitation. Nonetheless, as explained in both the preambles to the proposed and final Site Remediation NESHAP, we believe that CERCLA, rather than the requirements of this rule, provides the most appropriate, comprehensive and effective approach to address air emissions resulting from site remediation activities at sites addressed using CERCLA authority. See 67 FR 49406 ( July 30, 2002). Therefore, as a general matter we do not expect the Site Remediation NESHAP to be an " appropriate" requirement in most CERCLA response actions.

2.7.8 Compliance with Executive Order 13045 62 Comment: Several commenters [ Docket entries IV D 06, IVD 34, IV D 36, IV D 46, IV D 50] contend that the proposed exemption of site remediations conducted to clean up radioactive mixed waste ( RMW) from being subject to the site remediation NESHAP fails to comply with Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Response: Our decision to include an exemption for RMW complies with Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant," as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have a reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The Site Remediation NESHAP is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on control technology and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, the Site Remediation NESHAP has been determined not to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866.

2.8 OTHER COMMENTS 2.8.1 Rule Format Comment: Three commenters [ Docket entries IV D 23, IV D 29, IV D 38] stated that presenting many rule requirements in an exclusively tabular format, and extensive cross referencing to provisions in other subparts which we used for the proposed 63 rule makes the rule not only exceptionally difficult to comply with, but also difficult to enforce. Response: We have significantly revised the final rule's editorial format, organization, and regulatory text. Many of the requirements that were presented exclusively in tables in the proposed rule have been moved back into the regulatory text of the final rule and the applicable tables deleted. While these editorial changes to the final rule make it appear substantially different from the proposed rule, most of the technical and administrative requirements remain the same as proposed.

2.8.2 Federal Register Proposal Notice Editorial and Typographical Errors Comment: Several commenters ( IV D 01, IV D 02, IV D 09, IV D 10, IV D 22, IV D 48) identified typographical error, cross reference inconsistencies, and other editorial problems in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register notice. Response: As discussed in our response in Section 2.8.2, we significantly revised the editorial format, organization, and regulatory text wording of the final rule eliminating many of the provisions and tables identified by the commenters with editorial and typographical errors. We corrected all of the language and citation errors identified by the commenters that were still relevant to the language we used in the final rule.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21671-21672]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1512-000]

Westlake Natrium LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Westlake Natrium LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability, is April 25, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 5, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07581 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8383-8386]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0673; Product Identifier 2019-NM-101-AD; Amendment
39-19832; AD 2020-02-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-24-
07, which applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes;
Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes;
A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-
111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2014-
24-07 required repetitive rototest inspections for cracking; corrective
actions if necessary; and modification of the torsion box, which
terminates the repetitive inspections. This AD continues to require the
actions in AD 2014-24-07, with certain revised compliance times, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by a report of a
crack found in the side box beam flange of the fuselage at the frame
(FR) 43 level during a fatigue test campaign. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 20, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publication listed in this AD as of March 20,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for

and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0673.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0673; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0122, dated June 4, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0122'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 airplanes; Model A319-111,
-112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212,
-214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -
131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215
airplanes are not certified by the FAA and are not included on the U.S.
type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2014-24-07, Amendment 39-18040 (79 FR
72124, December 5, 2014) (``AD 2014-24-07''). AD 2014-24-07 applied to
certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -
113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; A320-211, -212, -214,
-231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on September 6, 2019 (84 FR 46900). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of a crack found in the side box beam flange of the fuselage at
the FR 43 level during a fatigue test campaign. The NPRM proposed to
continue to require repetitive rototest inspections for cracking;
corrective actions if necessary; and modification of the torsion box,
which would terminate the repetitive inspections. The NPRM also
proposed to require certain revised compliance times. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address cracking in the side box beam flange of the
fuselage, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the NPRM

    United Airlines stated its support for the NPRM.

Request To Use a Certain Revision of the Service Information

    JetBlue requested that Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251,
Revision 03, dated September 19, 2016, and not Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-53-1251, Revision 04, dated May 17, 2019, be used for
accomplishing the actions specified in the proposed AD and paragraphs
(2) and (3) of EASA AD 2019-0122. JetBlue stated that Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-53-1251, Revision 04, dated May 17, 2019, does not
require any additional work compared to Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
53-1251, Revision 03, dated September 19, 2016.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Paragraph (2) of
EASA AD 2019-0122 specifically requires compliance in accordance with
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, Revision 04, dated May 17, 2019,
due to changes highlighted in the Accomplishment Instructions for
certain configurations. However, paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2019-0122
provides credit for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, dated
November 16, 2012; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, Revision 01,
dated October 18, 2013; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251, Revision
02, dated February 11, 2016; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1251,
Revision 03, dated September 19, 2016; if the actions are accomplished
before the effective date of the AD. This AD provides the same
allowance for credit since EASA AD 2019-0122 is incorporated by
reference. This AD has not been changed in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Applicability

    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that certain language be added to
the applicability paragraph of the proposed AD. DAL stated that
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD applies to certain Model A310, A320,
and A321 family airplanes as identified in EASA AD 2019-0122. DAL
stated that EASA AD 2019-0122 provides additional applicability
details, namely exclusions of manufacturer serial numbers based upon a
certain Airbus modification embodied in production. DAL suggested that
similar language be added to paragraph (c) of the proposed AD.
    The FAA agrees to clarify the applicability of this AD. By
incorporation by reference of EASA AD 2019-0122 into this AD, the same
production modification applicability exceptions identified in EASA AD
2019-0122 apply to this AD. These exceptions are addressed by the
statement ``. . . as identified in European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2019-0122'' in paragraph (c) of this AD. We have not changed
this AD in this regard.
    In addition, this AD and EASA AD 2019-0122 are not applicable to
Model A310 airplanes as the commenter stated. This AD has not been
changed in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0122 describes procedures for repetitive rototest
inspections for cracking; corrective actions if necessary; and
modification of the torsion box, which terminates the repetitive
inspections. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 851 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2014-24-07...  178 work-hours x $85 per         $31,334         $46,464     $39,540,864
                                         hour = $15,130.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new requirements of this AD add no new economic burden.
    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-24-07, Amendment 39-18040 (79 FR 72124, December 5, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2020-02-20 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19832; Docket No. FAA-2019-0673;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-101-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 20, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-24-07, Amendment 39-18040 (79 FR 72124,
December 5, 2014) (``AD 2014-24-07'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS airplanes specified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category, as
identified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0122,
dated June 4, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0122'').
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the side
box beam flange of the fuselage at the frame (FR) 43 level during a
fatigue test campaign. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracking in the side box beam flange of the fuselage, which could
affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2019-0122.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0122

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0122 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD. However, where
Table 1 of EASA AD 2019-0122 provides compliance times for group 1B
airplanes as ``[w]ithin 3,000 FC or 6,000 FH'' after a given date,
this AD requires that those compliance times be calculated 3,000
flight cycles or 6,000 flight hours, ``whichever occurs first''
after January 9, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2014-24-07).
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0122 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) 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 instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0122 that contains RC procedures and
tests, except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 20, 2020.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0122,
dated June 4, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For information about EASA AD 2019-0122, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0673.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 29, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02974 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Technical Appendices

For

Redesignation Request,

Maintenance Plan

and 2002 Base Year Inventory

Franklin County

 Ozone Nonattainment Area

November  2006

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Air Quality

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A:  	Stationary Point Sources

A-1  	Methodology – Preparation of Pennsylvania Point Source Inventories and Instructions for Completing the Annual Emissions Reporting Forms

A-2  	Facility Annual Emissions by SCC

A-3	Facility Daily Emissions by SCC

Appendix B:  	Stationary Area Sources

B-1    	Pennsylvania 2002 Area Source Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimation Methods (EH Pechan, Feb. 2004)

B-2	Area Source Annual Emissions by SCC

B-3	Area Source Daily Emissions by SCC

	Appendix C:  	Highway Vehicles  (includes Executive Summary)

C-1   	Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory – An Explanation of Methodology

C-2	Franklin County Highway Emissions Estimates

2002 Annual and Daily CO, NOx, VOC & VMT by SCC; Daily NOx, VOC and VMT by Facility and Vehicle Type.

2004, 2009, 2018 Daily VOC, NOx and VMT by Facility Type, Vehicle Type and SCC; Daily CO by SCC

C-3   	MOBILE6.2 Input Parameter Summary

C-4	MOBILE6.2 Sample Input File

C-5	Traffic Growth Forecasting System Report

	Appendix D:  	Nonroad Sources

D-1	Emissions Estimation Methodology

D-2	Nonroad Source Emissions by Category and SCC

	Appendix E:	Source Emissions Projection Methodology


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81704-81707]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9388; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-145-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted
by a report indicating that an aileron cable failed on an airplane
during a tension check and a determination that Model 36A airplanes
were not included in AD 2005-13-36, which addresses this issue for
other Learjet Inc. airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time
inspection of the center ball of the aileron control cables for a
defective

swage, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
prevent the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Learjet,
Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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>.

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-2016-
9388; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Ristow, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D.
Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316-946-
4120; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9388;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-145-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report indicating that an aileron cable failed on a
Learjet Inc. Model 35A (C-21A) airplane when the cable underwent a
tension check while being installed. Further investigation showed that
an over-sized ball was swaged onto the cable during manufacture.
Swaging an over-sized ball onto a cable allows excess material into the
swaging die, which causes the ball to over-swage and then sever the
cable strands. This condition, if not corrected, could result in severe
weakening of the aileron cable, and consequent reduced controllability
of the airplane.
    The subject area on Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes is identical
to that on the affected Model 35A (C-21A) airplane. Therefore, Model
36A airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition.
    We previously issued AD 2005-13-36, Amendment 39-14173 (70 FR
38578, July 5, 2005) (``AD 2005-13-36''), for Learjet Inc. Model 23,
24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B,
25C, 25D, 25F, 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A (C-21A), and 36 airplanes.
Model 36A airplanes were inadvertently omitted from the applicability
of that AD. The applicability of AD 2005-13-36 referred to Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002, for Model
35, 35A (C-21A), and 36 airplanes. However, Model 36A airplanes are
also identified in that service information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated
December 23, 2002. The service information describes procedures for a
one-time inspection of the center ball of the aileron control cables
for a defective swage, and replacement of defective cables. 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.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as described in
``Differences between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23,
2002, recommends that operators accomplish the actions within 10 flight
hours after receipt. This proposed AD would require that operators
accomplish the actions within 100 flight hours, or 90 days after the
effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first. We find that the
proposed compliance time addresses the unsafe condition soon enough to
maintain an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD we
considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the unsafe
condition, and the maximum interval of time allowable for all affected
airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on  U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                  $0              $85           $1,785
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                      Labor cost                Parts cost              Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable Replacement................  \1\ Up to 48 work-hours  \1\ Up to $2,020.........  \1\ Up to $6,100.
                                    x $85 per hour = up to
                                    $4,080.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These costs assume replacement of all 5 cables.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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):

Learjet Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9388; Directorate Identifier 2016-
NM-145-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 3, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that an aileron
cable failed on an airplane during a tension check. We are issuing
this AD to prevent severe weakening of the aileron cable, and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within 100 flight hours or 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the
center ball of the aileron control cables for a defective swage, and
before further flight, replace any damaged or defective cable with a
new cable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23,
2002. For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: An
intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly
to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is
normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an
intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirrors,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and
elaborate procedures may be required.

(h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane an aileron control cable unless it has been inspected
in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) No Reporting or Parts Return Requirement

    Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated
December 23, 2002, has procedures for submitting a report showing
compliance and for returning any discrepant parts to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include those requirements.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
    (2) 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Donald Ristow,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA,
Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower
National Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
316-946-4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone
316-946-2000; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.bombardier.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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-27532 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 59 (Thursday, March 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 17176]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06380]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0001]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Florida Gas
Transmission Company

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comment on a
request for special permit received from the Florida Gas Transmission
Company (FGT). The special permit request is seeking relief from
compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety
regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will
review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation
to grant or deny the special permit request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
April 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for this
specific special permit request and may be submitted in the following
ways:
     E-Gov Website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two (2) copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Note: There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Sec.  190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential
treatment to information you give to the agency by taking the following
steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission
containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along with the
original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI
deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a special permit request from
FGT seeking a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611(a) and
(d), ``Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum
allowable operating pressure'', and Sec.  192.619(a), ``Maximum
allowable operating pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines''. This
special permit is being requested in lieu of pipe replacement or
pressure reduction for thirteen special permit segments in the FGT
pipeline system. The FGT system totals 1.92 miles of pipeline located
in four (4) counties (Brevard, Lake, Orange, and Osceola) in the State
of Florida, where the class locations have changed from Class 1 to
Class 3, or Class 2 to Class 3. The pipeline special permit segments
are short in length, not contiguous, and comprise of 26-inch and 30-
inch diameter pipelines with existing maximum allowable operating
pressures of 974 to 977 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). The
installation dates of the pipeline segments range from 1968 to 1995.
    The request, proposed special permit with conditions, and Draft
Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the FGT pipeline are available for
review and public comment in Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0001. We invite
interested persons to review and submit comments on the special permit
request and DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on potential
safety and environmental impacts that may result if the special permit
is granted. Comments may include relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will
evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date.
Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated, if it is
possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA
will consider each relevant comment it receives in making its decision
to grant or deny this special permit request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2020-06380 Filed 3-25-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P