[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25590-25595]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11822]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0497; Product Identifier 2017-NM-140-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 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 Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model
A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and
Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by
reports of cracking on the frame (FR) 47 angle fitting. This proposed
AD would require, depending on airplane configuration, a modification
of certain angle fitting attachment holes, repetitive inspections for
cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting web,
certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal splicing,
the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 19, 2018.

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 Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information 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>.

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-2018-
0497; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

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-2018-0497;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-140-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0210, dated October 24, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-603, B4-
620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-
605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600R series airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    Prompted by cracks found on the Frame (FR) 47 angle fitting,
Airbus issued SB [Service Bulletin] A300-57-6049, SB A300-57-6050,
and SB A300-57-6086.
    These cracks, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the centre wing box (CWB) of the aeroplane.
    Consequently, DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
l'Aviation Civile] France published AD 94-241-170, AD 1999-147-279,
AD 2000-533-328 and AD F-2004-159 (EASA approval 2004-9779), each AD
superseding the previous one, to require repetitive high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspections of the FR47 internal
lower angle fitting.
    After DGAC France AD F-2004-159 was issued, cracks were
reportedly found on the horizontal flange of FR47 internal corner
angle fitting during accomplishment of routine maintenance
structural inspection and modification in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus SB A300-57-6050. Prompted by these findings,
Airbus reviewed and amended the inspection programme for the
internal lower angle fitting flange (horizontal face).
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0092 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879, November 6, 2014)
(``AD 2014-20-18'')], retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD
F-2004-159, which was superseded, and requiring additional
repetitive inspections of the CWB lower panel through the ultrasonic
method and, depending on findings, re-installation of removed
fasteners in transition fit instead of interface.
    In addition, DGAC France had previously issued AD F-2005-124
(EASA approval 2005-6071) to require the same inspections for A300
F4-608ST aeroplanes, in accordance with Airbus SB A300-57-9001 and
SB A300-57-9002.
    Following the discovery of numerous cracks during the
accomplishment of SB A300-57-6049 and SB A300-57-6089 inspections,
Airbus developed in a first step a new (recommended) modification
(Airbus SB A300-57-6113) and defined, for post-mod aeroplanes, new
inspections, and published SB A300-57-6119, which included new
inspection methods (ultrasonic/radiographic) with new inspection
thresholds and intervals.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0198, retaining the
requirements of EASA AD 2012-0092, which was superseded, to require
repetitive inspections for post-SB A300-57-6113 aeroplanes.
    Since EASA AD 2016-0198 was issued, Airbus revised in a second
step the inspection programme for A300-600 pre-SB 57-6113 and A300-
600ST aeroplanes, reducing inspection thresholds and intervals. At
this opportunity, the existing ultrasonic inspection for A300-600
aeroplanes has been added for A300-600ST aeroplanes.
    For the reasons described above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2016-0198 for A300-600 aeroplanes and of
DGAC France AD F-2005-124 for A300-600ST aeroplanes, which are both
superseded, and requires [modification through cold expansion of
certain angle fitting attachment holes and] repetitive inspections
[for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting
web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting horizontal
splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction area,
and applicable related investigative and corrective actions] with
new compliance times and intervals. This [EASA] AD is applicable to
both A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes * * *.

    Related investigative actions include a rotating probe inspection
for cracking. Corrective actions include replacing damaged fasteners,
reaming and drilling holes, installing the next nominal fastener for
oversized bore holes, and repairing cracks. 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-2018-0497.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2014-20-18

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2014-20-18. Rather, we have
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require depending on airplane
configuration, a modification of certain angle fitting attachment
holes, inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower
angle fitting web, certain holes of the internal lower angle fitting
horizontal splicing, the aft bottom panel, and the FR47/Rib 1 junction
area. Accomplishment of the proposed modification and initial
inspections would then terminate all of the requirements of AD 2014-20-
18.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information.
     Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4,
2017. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating
probe inspections for cracking of certain holes of the internal lower
angle fitting web.
     Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4,
2017. This service information describes procedures for HFEC rotating
probe inspections for cracking of certain holes in the internal lower
angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand sides) and
for ultrasonic inspections for cracking of the aft bottom panel.
     Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April
25, 2016. This service information describes procedures for ultrasonic
and radiographic inspections for cracking of the FR47/Rib 1 junction
area.
    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 and Requirements of This 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 65 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Labor cost                      Parts cost                Cost per product            operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 727 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $3,370...............  Up to $65,165..............  Up to $4,235,725
 hour = Up to $61,795.                                                                        per inspection
                                                                                cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be
$5,525, or $85 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

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):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0497; Product Identifier 2017-NM-140-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 19, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-20-18, Amendment 39-17991 (79 FR 65879,
November 6, 2014) (``AD 2014-20-18'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-603, A300 B4-620, A300
B4-622, A300 B4-605R, A300 B4-622R, A300 C4-605R Variant F, and A300
F4-605R airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer
serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 12171
or 12249 has been embodied in production, or on which Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6069 has been embodied in service.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking on the frame (FR) 47
angle fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking
of FR47 angle fitting, which could

result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD, the definitions in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (g)(6) apply.
    (1) Group 1 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016,
has not been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Group 2 airplanes are those airplanes on which Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016,
has been incorporated as of the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The average flight time (AFT) for the inspection threshold
is defined as the flight hours (FH) divided by the flight cycles
(FC), counted from the first flight of the airplane.
    (4) The AFT for the inspection interval is defined as the FH
divided by the FC, counted from the date of the last inspection
required by paragraph (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (5) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has been
embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by paragraphs
(i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted from the first flight of
the airplane.
    (6) For airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not
been embodied, the thresholds for the inspections required by
paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are counted since the date
on which Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050 was embodied on the
airplane.

(h) Modification

    For all airplanes on which Airbus modification 10155 has not
been embodied: Before exceeding 15,100 FC or 38,900 FH, whichever
occurs first after first flight of the airplane; or within the
``grace periods'' defined in paragraph 1.B.(4), ``Accomplishment
Timescale,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 3,
dated May 31, 2001; whichever occurs later, modify the angle fitting
attachment holes of the wing center box by cold expansion, including
doing a rotating probe inspection for cracking, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001. Where paragraph 1.B.(4),
``Accomplishment Timescale,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6050, Revision 3, dated May 31, 2001, specifies ``grace periods''
relative to the receipt of the service bulletin, count the ``grace
periods'' from December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-
08). If any crack is found during any inspection: Before further
flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(i) Internal Lower Angle Fitting (Vertical Face) Web Inspections

    For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold
specified in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD, or within 12
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection
for cracking of holes H, I, K, L, M, N, U, V, W, X, and Y of the
internal lower angle fitting web (left-hand and right-hand sides),
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated July 4, 2017. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in
figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN18.002

(j) Internal Lower Angle Fitting (Horizontal Face) Inspections

    For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable threshold
specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD, or within 12
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
do an HFEC rotating probe inspection for cracking of holes A, B, C,
D, E, F, G, P, Q, S, and T (adjacent to hole G) of the internal
lower angle fitting horizontal splicing (left-hand and right-hand
sides), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4, 2017.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed those
specified in figure 2 to paragraph (j) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN18.003

(k) Aft Bottom Panel Inspections

    For Group 1 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable
thresholds specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD, or
within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, do an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the aft
bottom panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6, dated July 4,
2017. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
those specified in figure 3 to paragraph (k) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN18.004

(l) FR47/Rib 1 Junction Area Inspections

    For Group 2 airplanes: Before exceeding the applicable
thresholds specified in figure 4 to paragraph (l) of this AD, do
ultrasonic and radiographic inspections for cracking of the FR47/Rib
1 junction area, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated April
25, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed those specified in figure 4 to paragraph (l) of this AD.
Count the threshold compliance times from the date on which Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6113, Revision 00, dated April 25, 2016,
was embodied on the airplane.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04JN18.005

(m) Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (i), (j), (k),
or (l) of this AD, any crack is found: Before further flight,
accomplish all applicable related investigative and corrective
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service information specified in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of
this AD, as applicable. Where the service information specified in
paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(3) of this AD specifies to contact
Airbus for instructions, before further flight, obtain instructions
approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA and accomplish those
instructions accordingly. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (1) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (i) of
this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6049, Revision 8, dated
July 4, 2017.
    (2) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (j) or
(k) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6086, Revision 6,
dated July 4, 2017.
    (3) If the inspection was done as specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6119, Revision 00, dated
April 25, 2016.

(n) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2)
of this AD: Report the results of the inspections required by
paragraphs (i), (j), (k), and (l) of this AD to Airbus Service
Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (https://w3.airbus.com/), or submit the results to Airbus in accordance with
the instructions of the applicable service information specified in
paragraphs (i), (j), (k), or (l) of this AD. The report must include
the inspection results, a description of any discrepancies found,
the

airplane serial number, and the number of flight cycles and flight
hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(o) Terminating Action for AD 2014-20-18

    Accomplishment of the action required by paragraph (h) of this
AD and the initial inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (j),
and (k) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2014-20-18.

(p) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
December 19, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-23-08), using
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6050, Revision 02, dated February
10, 2000.

(q) 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 (r)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
work-hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of
information. All responses to this collection of information are
mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and
suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
    (4) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (m) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(r) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0210, dated October 24, 2017, 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-2018-0497.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information 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>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 23, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11822 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20675-20677]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8908]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0221]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Labeling
Statements on Food Packages

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on a study entitled ``Experimental Study on
Consumer Responses to Labeling Statements on Food Packages.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by June 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Experimental Study on Consumer Responses to Labeling Statements on Food
Packages; 21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)--(OMB 0910-NEW)

I. Background

    The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act requires almost all
packaged foods to bear nutrition labeling in the form of the Nutrition
Facts label. The law also allows manufacturers to provide other
nutrition information on labels in the form of various types of
statements, including claims, as long as such statements comply with
the regulatory limits that govern the use of each type of statement.
There are three types of

claims that the food industry can voluntarily use on food labels: (1)
Health claims, (2) nutrient content claims (e.g., ``Low fat''), and (3)
structure/function claims (e.g., ``Calcium builds strong bones.'').
There are three types of health claims: (1) Those that meet the
Significant Scientific Standard (e.g., ``Adequate calcium and Vitamin D
throughout life, as part of a well-balanced diet, may reduce the risk
of osteoporosis.''), (2) those that are based on authoritative
statements from a recognized scientific body of the U.S. government or
the National Academy of Sciences (e.g., ``Diets containing foods that
are a good source of potassium and that are low in sodium may reduce
the risk of high blood pressure and stroke.''), and (3) qualified
health claims that are granted under enforcement discretion (e.g.,
``Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA
and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease. One serving of [Name of the food] provides [ ] grams of EPA
and DHA omega-3 fatty acids. [See nutrition information for total fat,
saturated fat, and cholesterol content.]''). Although the different
types of claims are regulated differently, they all must be truthful
and not misleading (Ref. 1).
    With the increased public interest in identifying healthier foods,
U.S. food processors have been adding nutritional information in the
form of nutrition symbols to food labels in addition to claims.
Examples of nutrition symbols that have been or are planned to be used
on food labels include nutrient-specific disclosure (e.g., ``Guideline
Daily Amounts'') (Ref. 2), calorie declaration (Ref. 3), summary
product rating (e.g., ``Smart Spot'') (Ref. 4), and a hybrid summary
indicator with nutrient-specific disclosure (e.g., ``Sensible Solution:
Good Source of Calcium, Good Sources of 8 Vitamins and Minerals'')
(Ref. 5). Claims related to non-nutritional product characteristics are
also used in food labeling. The claims may feature, among other things,
statements about how foods are grown or made (e.g., ``Organic'' and
``All Natural'') or absence of a substance (e.g., ``Gluten-free'').
    Many consumers use claims and the Nutrition Facts label in food
choice decisions (Refs. 6 through 8). While some products carry only a
single labeling statement (e.g., either one claim or one symbol) on
their packages, many products carry two or more labeling statements. In
addition, on the same package the attributes of one statement may
differ from those of other statements in terms of featured nutrient,
type of claim, framing of statement, nature of statement, and
presentation of statement. For example, a package may display one or
more statements such as symbols relating to nutrition content,
statements in words relating to the presence of certain nutrients,
statements in words relating to the absence of other nutrients,
statements in words relating the health benefits of consuming foods
containing or not containing certain other nutrients, and statements in
words describing how the product was produced. Moreover, all of those
symbols and statements are distributed in various places on the package
in different font sizes and colors.
    There exists a large body of literature on the impacts of different
types of labeling statements on consumer perceptions and choices of
products (Refs. 9 and 10). The majority of the research, including the
consumer research that the Agency has previously conducted (Refs. 11
and 12), has focused on single labeling statements by eliciting study
participants' reactions to variants of a given statement. An advantage
of this research approach is that it helps isolate the effects of
individual statements and avoid potential confounding effects caused by
the presence of other statements. A disadvantage of this research
approach, however, is that it does not necessarily reflect the labels
consumers see in the marketplace. In particular, the existing
literature provides little information about how the coexistence of two
or more different labeling statements affects product perceptions and
choices. This information, however, is critical for understanding the
roles played by labeling statements in dietary decisions.
    Research suggests consumer product perceptions and purchase
decisions can be influenced by labeling statements and different
labeling statements may have different influences (Refs. 9 through 12).
Therefore, the FDA, as part of its effort to promote public health,
proposes to use this study to explore consumer responses to food labels
that bear multiple labeling statements. Specifically, the study plans
to examine: (1) Consumer responses to food labels that exhibit various
combinations of the characteristics of labeling statements (i.e.,
nutrients, types of claim, framing of statement, nature of statement,
and presentation of statement), (2) whether and how consumer responses
to one of the characteristics may be affected by other characteristics
(i.e., the interactions between different characteristics of labeling
statements), and (3) whether and how labeling statements affect the use
of the Nutrition Facts label.
    The proposed collection of information is a controlled randomized
experimental study. The study will use a 15-minute Web-based survey to
collect information from 4,000 English-speaking adult members of an
online consumer panel maintained by a contractor. The study will aim to
produce a sample that reflects the U.S. Census on gender, education,
age, and ethnicity/race.
    The study will randomly assign each of its participants to view two
label images from a set of food labels that will be created for the
study and systematically varied in the (1) number of statements (none,
one, or two); (2) featured nutrient and substance (e.g., fat, sodium,
sugars, fiber, whole grain, calories, antioxidant vitamins, or
allergen); (3) type of statement (text or graphic, specifically the
Guideline Daily Amounts nutrition symbol); (4) framing of statement
(``good source of,'' ``low,'' or ``free''); (5) nature of statement
(nutrition or method of production such as ``natural''); (6) type size
of statement (large or small); and (7) featured product (e.g., snacks,
breakfast cereals, breads, soups, or frozen meals). With regard to
claims, the study will focus on examples of nutrient content claims and
structure/function claims, which can be found on many food packages
(Ref. 13). All label images will be mock-ups resembling food labels
that may be found in the marketplace. Images will show product identity
(e.g., potato chips), but not any real or fictitious brand name. The
study will provide interested participants access to the Nutrition
Facts label, but not together with a product image.
    The survey will ask its participants to view label images and
answer questions about their perceptions and reactions related to the
viewed product and label. Product perceptions (e.g., healthiness,
potential health benefits, levels of nutrients and substances, taste,
and safety) and label perceptions (e.g., helpfulness and credibility)
will constitute the measures of responses in the experiment. To help
understand the data, the survey will also collect information about
participants' background, such as consumption, purchase, perception,
and familiarity with a category of food; awareness and knowledge of
nutrients and substances; dietary interests; motivation regarding label
use and health literacy; and health status and demographic
characteristics.
    The study is part of the Agency's continuing effort to enable
consumers to make informed dietary choices and construct healthful
diets. Results of the study will be used primarily to enrich the
Agency's understanding of how

multiple claims and other labeling statements on food packages may
affect how consumers perceive a product or a label, which may in turn
affect their dietary choices. Results of the study will not be used to
develop population estimates.
    To help design and refine the questionnaire, FDA plans to conduct
cognitive interviews by screening 72 panelists in order to obtain 9
participants in the interviews. Each screening is expected to take 5
minutes (0.083 hour) and each cognitive interview is expected to take 1
hour. The total for cognitive interview activities is 15 hours (6 hours
+ 9 hours). Subsequently, we plan to conduct pretests of the
questionnaire before it is administered in the study. We expect that
1,600 invitations, each taking 2 minutes (0.033 hour), will need to be
sent to panelists to have 200 of them complete a 15-minute (0.25 hour)
pretest. The total for the pretest activities is 106 hours (53 hours +
50 hours). For the survey, we estimate that 32,000 invitations, each
taking 2 minutes (0.033 hour) to complete, will need to be sent to the
consumer panel to have 3,000 of its members complete a 15-minute (0.25
hour) questionnaire. The total for the survey activities is 2,056 hours
(1,056 hours + 1,000 hours). Thus, the total estimated burden is 2,174
hours. FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research
that is similar to this proposed study.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                     Number of       Number of     Total annual     burden per
        Portion of study            respondents    responses per     responses     response  (in    Total hours
                                                    respondent                        hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interview screener....              72               1              72            5/60               6
Cognitive interview.............               9               1               9               1               9
Pretest invitation..............           1,600               1           1,600            2/60              53
Pretest.........................             200               1             200           15/60              50
Survey invitation...............          32,000               1          32,000            2/60           1,056
Survey..........................           4,000               1           4,000           15/60           1,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           2,174
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

II. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but we are not responsible
for any subsequent changes to the Web site after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.)

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Claims That Can Be Made for
Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements. September 2003.
Available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/ucm111447.htm.
2. Kellogg's. Nutrition at a Glance. 2010. Available at http://www.kelloggnutrition.com/learn-about-labels/nutrition-at-a-glance.html.
3. PepsiCo. Nutrition Labeling. 2010. Available at http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Human-Sustainability/Nutrition-Labeling.html.
4. Schmit, J. ``PepsiCo Labels Some of Its Products `Smart,''' USA
Today, September 2, 2004. Available at http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2004-09-02-smart-spot_x.htm.
5. Kraft Foods. Sensible Solution. 2010. Available at http://www.kraftrecipes.com/kf/HealthyLiving/SensibleSolution/SensibleSolution_Landing.aspx.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2005-2006 National
Health and Examination Survey questionnaire, Diet Behavior and
Nutrition section. Unpublished results of questions DBQ.750 and
DBQ.780. Questionnaire is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/nhanes_05_06/sp_dbq_d.pdf.
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2008 Health and Diet Survey.
March 20, 2010. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/ConsumerResearch/ucm193895.htm.
8. Food Marketing Institute. 2009 U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends
Survey. Washington, DC 2009.
9. Drichoutis, A.C., Lazaridis, P. and Nayga, R.M., ``Consumers' Use
of Nutritional Labels: a Review of Research Studies and Issues,''
Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2006(9), 2006. Available at
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/drichoutis09-2006.pdf.
10. L[auml]hteenm[auml]ki, L., Lampila, P.. Grunert, K., Boztug, Y.,
Ueland, [Oslash]., [Aring]str[ouml]m, A. and Martinsd[oacute]ttir,
E., ``Impact of Health-Related Claims on the Perception of Other
Product Attributes,'' Food Policy, 23: 230-9. 2010.
11. Labiner-Wolfe, J., Lin, C.-T. J. and Verrill L., ``Effect of Low
Carbohydrate Claims on Consumer Perceptions about Food Products'
Healthfulness and Helpfulness for Weight Management,'' Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(5): 315-320, 2010.
12. Roe, B., Levy, A.S., and Derby, B.M., ``The Impact of Health
Claims on Consumer Search and Product Evaluation Outcomes: Evidence
from FDA Experimental Data,'' Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 18(1): 89-105, 1999.
13. LeGault, L., Brandt, M.B., McCabe, N., Adler, C., Brown, A.-M.,
and Brecher, S., ``2000-2001 Food Label and Package Survey: An
Update on Prevalence of Nutrition Labeling and Claims on Processed,
Packaged Foods,'' Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
104(6): 952-8, 2004.

    Dated: April 8, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-8908 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 32824]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fourteenth Meeting: RTCA Tactical Operations Committee (TOC)

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

ACTION: Notice of Fourteenth RTCA Tactical Operations Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Fourteenth RTCA Tactical Operations Committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 23, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or Trin
Mitra, TOC Secretary, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Tactical Operations Committee. The
agenda will include the following:

Thursday, June 23, 2016

1. Opening of Meeting/Introduction of TOC Members--Co Chairs Dale
Wright and Bryan Quigley
2. Official Statement of Designated Federal Official--Elizabeth Ray
3. Approval of April 4, 2016 Meeting Summary
4. FAA Update--Elizabeth Ray
5. Update from Ongoing Task Groups
    a. PBN Route Structure Task Group
    b. Graphical TFR Task Group
6. FAA Responses from Previous Recommendations
    a. Airport Construction
    b. National Procedure Assessment
    c. NorCal Noise Initiative
    d. Caribbean Operations
    e. Class B Airspace
7. Briefing on Commercial Space
8. Update on NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)
9. Briefing on Drone Advisory Committee (DAC)
10. Other Business
11. Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-12214 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55379-55380]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Docket No. CP11-536-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on August 19, 2011, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
(Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed a prior
notice request, pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.211(a)(2) of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Regulations under the Natural
Gas Act, to construct and operate a new delivery point to serve The
City of Middleton Gas System (Middleton) in Hardeman County, Tennessee
under Tennessee's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-413-
000, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open for public inspection. The filing may also
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For

assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Thomas G. Joyce, Manager, Certificates, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at (713) 420-
3299, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>C. Todd Piczak, Senior
Counsel, El Paso Corporation, 2101 L Street, NW Suite 1000, Washington
DC 20037, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by facsimile at (202) 257-
6169, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Juan Eligio,
Regulatory Analyst, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 1001 Louisiana
Street, Houston, Texas 77002, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest
is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall
be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of
the NGA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: August 31, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22819 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

    In addition to the rules listed in section III.C.5.a of this
notice, EPA's Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards Rule
\83\ also reduces SO2 emissions by establishing gasoline
sulfur standards that reduce SO2 emissions from certain
types of mobile sources. EPA proposes that these Federal measures taken
together have lowered and/or will continue to lower SO2
emissions, and so are expected to continue to support EPA's proposed
conclusion that SO2 emissions from Tennessee will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1039,
1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, and 1066. See also 79 FR 23414 (April 28,
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, as supplemented on November 30, 2021, by the revised
modeling for Eastman Chemical, satisfies the requirements of prong 1 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA's evaluation of Prong 2 of the good
neighbor provision--Interference with Maintenance of the NAAQS--follows
and requires state plans to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of a NAAQS in another state.

D. EPA's Prong 2 Evaluation: Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS

1. State Submission
    In its July 31, 2019, SIP submission, TDEC relied upon the
information provided for prong 1 to demonstrate that emissions within
Tennessee will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any neighboring state, including: attaining DVs
for the

2016-2018 period; SO2 emission reductions trends from 2005-
2014 from the NEI; DRR modeling for large SO2 sources within
50 km of the State border; and supplemental modeling analyses out to 50
km for TVA-Gallatin and Eastman Chemical, which tend to show that the
areas of other states closest to these sources are not exceeding the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Also, TDEC indicates
that there are no monitors located in the nine surrounding states, or
Tennessee, that are violating the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
based on valid and complete data for the 2016-2018 monitoring period,
which TDEC believes is evidence that Tennessee is not interfering with
any maintenance efforts by neighboring states for this monitoring
period. Finally, as discussed in sections III.C.4 and III.C.5, TDEC
cited SIP-approved and Federal measures which address SO2
emissions in Tennessee.
2. EPA Analysis
    In North Carolina v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) explained that the
regulating authority must give prong 2 of the CAA's interstate
transport provision ``independent significance'' from prong 1 by
evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that,
even if currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment.
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA
interprets prong 2 to require an evaluation of the potential impact of
a state's emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data,
but that may have issues maintaining that air quality. Therefore, in
addition to the analysis presented by Tennessee, EPA has also reviewed
additional information on SO2 air quality and emission
trends to evaluate the State's conclusion that Tennessee will not
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
downwind states. This evaluation builds on the analysis regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), which looked at:
(1) potential ambient impacts of SO2 emissions from certain
facilities in Tennessee on neighboring states based on available
SO2 air dispersion modeling results; (2) SO2
emissions from Tennessee sources; (3) SO2 ambient air
quality for Tennessee and neighboring states, including the analysis of
Eastman Chemical in Sullivan County, Tennessee; (4) SIP-approved
Tennessee regulations that address SO2 emissions; and (5)
Federal regulations that reduce SO2 emissions at Tennessee
sources.
    For the prong 2 analysis, EPA evaluated the data discussed in
section III.C. of this notice for prong 1, with a specific focus on
evaluating emissions trends in Tennessee, analyzing air quality data,
and assessing how future sources of SO2 are addressed
through existing SIP-approved and Federal regulations. Based on 2019
emissions data, there is a continued trend of decreasing statewide
SO2 emissions within Tennessee. Additionally, there are no
Tennessee sources emitting over 100 tpy of SO2 in 2019
within 50 km of adjacent states' monitors with 2017-2019, 2018-2020,
and 2019-2021 DVs that exceed the level of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Given the historical trend of overall decreasing
SO2 emissions from sources within Tennessee, EPA proposes
that evaluating whether these decreases in emissions can be maintained
over time is a reasonable criterion to ensure that sources within
Tennessee do not interfere with its neighboring states' ability to
maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    With respect to air quality data trends, the 2015-2017 through
2019-2021 DVs for the Blount County AQS SO2 monitor and the
2012-2014 through 2019-2021 DVs for the Shelby County AQS
SO2 monitor in Tennessee within 50 km of another state's
border are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, as shown in Table 10 in section III.C.3.b. Additionally, three
of the four Sullivan County monitors in Tennessee have a 2019-2021 DV
below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The fourth
monitor is located north of the facility and is 1.3 km directly upwind
of an attaining monitor in the nonattainment area. Given the decreasing
gradient measured in the 2019-2021 and 2020-2022 DVs between the
monitors 47-163-6003 and 47-163-6001, which are only 1.3 km apart, it
may be the case that SO2 emissions from the source would not
contribute to nonattainment in the neighboring states that are 8 km-50
km from Eastman Chemical. Tennessee's revised transport modeling for
Eastman Chemical submitted on November 30, 2021, along with decreasing
SO2 emissions trends resulting from additional controls at
Eastman Chemical, and the absence of any large neighboring
SO2 sources, support EPA's proposed finding that Eastman
Chemical will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Further, as shown in Tables 2 and 3, modeling results for sources in
Tennessee within 50 km of the State border, including Eastman Chemical,
are below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
neighboring states and modeling results for sources in neighboring
states within 50 km of Tennessee's border show maximum impacts are well
below level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Thus, these
modeling results, in addition to the lack of additional nearby large
SO2 sources in the neighboring states within 50 km of the
Tennessee border, SIP-approved and Federal regulations that have
reduced SO2 emissions as discussed above, and annual DRR
reporting for large sources, demonstrate that Tennessee's sources of
SO2 are not expected to interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state.
3. Conclusion
    EPA proposes to determine that Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP
submission, as supplemented by the revised modeling for Eastman
Chemical on November 30, 2021, satisfies the requirements of prong 2 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This determination is based on the
following considerations: SO2 emissions statewide from 2005
to 2014 for all source categories (except the ``Event'' category, which
includes emissions from fires) and 2005 to 2017 for point sources in
Tennessee have declined significantly; current Tennessee SIP-approved
measures and Federal emissions control programs ensure control of
SO2 emissions from sources within Tennessee; current 2019-
2021 DVs for the AQS SO2 monitors in Blount and Shelby
Counties Tennessee within 50 km of another state's border with valid
DVs are well below the level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS;
regarding the Sullivan County, Tennessee, monitors, three of the four
Sullivan County monitors in Tennessee have a 2019-2021 DV below the
level of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS; regarding Eastman
Chemical and the Sullivan County monitor which is located north of the
facility and is 1.3 km directly upwind of an attaining monitor in the
nonattainment area, so given that the physical properties of
SO2 result in relatively localized pollutant impacts, the
decreasing gradient measured in the 2019-2021 DVs between the monitors
over only 1.3 km indicates that it is unlikely that SO2
emissions from the Eastman Chemical facility would contribute to
nonattainment in the neighboring states that are 8 km-50 km from
Eastman Chemical; Tennessee's revised transport modeling for Eastman
Chemical submitted on November 30, 2021, along with decreasing
SO2 emissions trends resulting from additional controls at
Eastman Chemical, and the absence of any large

neighboring SO2 sources, support EPA's proposed finding that
Eastman Chemical will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia; and
modeling for DRR sources within 50 km of Tennessee's border both within
the State and located in other states demonstrate that Tennessee's
largest point sources of SO2 are not expected to interfere
with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another
state. Based on these factors described above, in addition to the
analysis provided by Tennessee in its SIP submission and supplemented
on November 30, 2021, with revised modeling for Eastman Chemical, and
EPA's prong 1 analysis of the factors described in section III.C and
III.D of this notice, EPA proposes to find that emission sources within
Tennessee will not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Proposed Action

    Based on the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee's July 31, 2019, SIP submission. This determination is based
on EPA's independent evaluation, including as supplemented by the
revised modeling for Eastman Chemical, as demonstrating that emissions
from Tennessee will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    TDEC did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Due to the
nature of the action proposed here, this proposed action is expected to
have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected
area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-13470 Filed 6-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P