[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50434-50436]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18133]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 122

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376; FRL-9950-07-OW]

Public Notification for Combined Sewer Overflows in the Great
Lakes; Public Listening Session; Request for Stakeholder Input

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for stakeholder input.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing plans
to hold a public ``listening session'' on September 14, 2016 in
Chicago, Illinois to obtain information from the public to help inform
development of a new regulation establishing public notification
requirements for combined sewer overflow discharges in the Great Lakes.
This rulemaking is in response to new requirements included with the
2016 appropriations. EPA is requesting input from the public regarding
potential approaches for these new public notification requirements for
combined sewer overflow discharges in the Great Lakes through
participation in the public listening session and by submitting
information in writing at the listening sessions or to the agency
directly through email, fax, or mail. The agency is undertaking this
outreach to help it shape a future regulatory proposal intended to
provide the affected public with information that will help better
protect public health.

DATES: The session will be held on September 14, 2016. Comments must be
received on or before September 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The public listening session will be held at the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 Office (Lake Erie Room, Floor
12), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0378, to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For details on the public
listening session see SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Biddle, Water Permits Division,
Office of Water (4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
566-0350; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Also see the following Web site for additional information regarding
the rulemaking: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-great-lakes-basin.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Public Listening Session

    EPA will hold an informal public listening session to afford an
opportunity for the public to provide input on a regulatory action that
EPA is considering to establish public notification requirements for
combined sewer overflow discharges in the Great Lakes. Brief oral
comments (three minutes or less) and written statements will be
accepted at the session. The listening session will be held on
September 14, 2016 at 10 a.m. at the Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Office (Lake Erie Room, Floor 12), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604-3507. The listening session will continue until all
speakers in attendance have had a chance to provide comments or 3 p.m.,
whichever comes first. If time allows after all comments have been
heard, a broader discussion may take place regarding topics identified
under Section III, Input on Public Notice Considerations.

B. Additional Information and Public Meeting Registration

    Prior to the public meeting date, EPA will post any relevant
materials to the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-great-lakes-basin. Information posted to the
Web site will include any handouts that may be provided at the meeting
as well as a web link that participants may use to register for the
public meeting in advance. Advanced registration is not required but is
requested so that EPA can ensure there is sufficient space and time
allotted for those who wish to participate.

II. Background

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be proposing a rule
to establish public notification requirements for combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) to the Great Lakes, as required by Section 425 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113) (hereafter,
referred to as ``Section 425''). Section 425 requires EPA to work with
the Great Lakes states to create these public notice requirements, and
EPA is also seeking public input in the development of these
requirements.

Combined Sewer Overflows From Municipal Wastewater Collection Systems

    Municipal wastewater collection systems collect domestic sewage and
other wastewater from homes and other buildings and convey it to
wastewater treatment plants for proper treatment and disposal. The
collection and treatment of municipal sewage and wastewater is vital to
the public health in our cities and towns. In the United States,
municipalities historically have used two major types of sewer systems.
Many municipalities collect domestic sewage in a sanitary sewer system
and convey the sewage to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for
treatment. These municipalities also have separate sewer systems to
collect surface

drainage and stormwater, known as ``municipal separate storm sewer
systems'' or ``MS4s.'' Separate sanitary sewer systems are not designed
to collect large amounts of runoff from rain or snowmelt or provide
widespread surface drainage, although they typically are built with
some allowance for higher flows that occur during storm events to
handle minor amounts of stormwater or groundwater that enter the
system.
    The other type, combined sewer systems, is designed to collect both
sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff in a single-pipe system. This
type of sewer system provides the primary means of surface drainage
carrying rain and snowmelt away from streets, roofs, and other
impervious surfaces. Combined sewer systems were among the earliest
sewer systems constructed in the United States and were built until the
first part of the 20th century.
    A combined sewer system collects rainwater and snowmelt runoff,
domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater into one pipe. Under normal
conditions, it transports all of the wastewater it collects to a sewage
treatment plant for treatment. The volume of wastewater can sometimes
exceed the capacity of the combined sewer system or treatment plant
(e.g., during heavy rainfall events or snowmelt). When this occurs,
these systems are designed to divert some of the combined sewage prior
to reaching the treatment plant and to discharge untreated or partially
treated stormwater and wastewater directly to nearby streams, rivers
and other water bodies. These discharge events are referred to as
combined sewer overflows or CSOs.
    CSOs contain untreated or partially treated human and industrial
waste, toxic materials, and debris as well as stormwater. CSO events
can be detrimental to human health and the environment because they
introduce pathogens, bacteria, and other pollutants to receiving
waters, causing beach closures, contaminating drinking water supplies
and impairing water quality. Fish and other aquatic populations also
can be impacted by the depleted oxygen levels that can be caused by
CSOs.
    Combined sewer systems serve a total population of about 40 million
people nationwide. Most communities with CSOs are located in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions, particularly in Illinois, Indiana,
Maine, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
Although large cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Atlanta have
combined sewer systems, most communities with combined sewer systems
have fewer than 10,000 people. Most combined sewer systems have
multiple CSO discharge locations or outfalls, with some larger
communities with combined systems having hundreds of CSO outfalls.

Combined Sewer Overflows in the Great Lakes

    There are 184 communities with combined sewer systems serving
communities in the United States portion of the Great Lakes and the
Great Lakes System (``Great Lakes Basin'').\1\ This includes
communities in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,
Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. EPA recently summarized available
information on the occurrence and volume of discharges from CSOs in the
Great Lakes Basin during 2014 (see Report to Congress: Combined Sewers
in the Great Lakes (EPA 833-R-16-006)). As summarized in this report,
seven states reported 1,482 events where untreated combined stormwater,
industrial wastewater, and domestic sewage was discharged from CSOs in
the Great Lakes Basin in 2014 and an additional 187 CSO events where
partially treated wastewater were discharged. Additional information
regarding CSOs in the Great Lakes Basin, including the Report to
Congress, is available at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflows-great-lakes-basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 425 specifies in Section 425(a)(4) that the term
``Great Lakes'' means ``any of the waters as defined in the Section
118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1292).'' This, therefore, includes Section 118(a)(3)(B), which
defines ``Great Lakes'' as ``Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron
(including Lake St. Clair), Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior, and
the connecting channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River,
Detroit River, Niagara River, and Saint Lawrence River to the
Canadian Border);'' and Section 118(a)(3)(C), which defines ``Great
Lakes System'' as ``all the streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies
of water within the drainage basin of the Great Lakes.''
Collectively, EPA is referring to the Great Lakes and the Great
Lakes System as the ``Great Lakes Basin.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clean Water Act Regulations That Apply to Combined Sewer Systems

    The Clean Water Act establishes national goals and requirements for
maintaining and restoring the nation's waters. CSO discharges are
subject to the technology-based and water quality-based requirements of
the Clean Water Act under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits. Technology-based effluent limitations for CSO
discharges are based on the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) for toxic and nonconventional pollutants
and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) for
conventional pollutants. BAT and BCT effluent limitations for CSO
discharges are determined based on ``best professional judgment.'' CSO
discharges are not subject to permit limits based on secondary
treatment requirements that are applicable to POTWs. Permits
authorizing discharges from CSO outfalls must include more stringent
water quality-based requirements, when necessary, to meet water quality
standards (WQS).

CSO Control Policy

    EPA issued the CSO Control Policy on April 19, 1994 (59 FR 18688).
The CSO Control Policy ``represents a comprehensive national strategy
to ensure that municipalities, permitting authorities, WQS authorities,
and the public engage in a comprehensive and coordinative effort to
achieve cost-effective CSO controls that ultimately meet appropriate
health and environmental objectives.'' The policy assigns primary
responsibility for implementation and enforcement to NPDES permitting
authorities and WQS authorities.
    The policy also established objectives for CSO communities to: 1)
Implement the Nine Minimum Controls and submit documentation on their
implementation; and 2) Develop and implement a long-term CSO control
plan (LTCP) to ultimately result in compliance with the Clean Water
Act, including water quality-based requirements. In describing NPDES
permit requirements for CSO discharges, the CSO Control Policy states
that the BAT/BCT technology-based effluent limitations ``at a minimum
include[s] the nine minimum controls.'' 59 FR 18696. One of the nine
minimum controls is ``Public notification to ensure that the public
receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts.'' At
a minimum, the technology based effluent limitations applicable to CSOs
include the nine minimum controls.

Wet Weather Water Quality Act

    In December 2000, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554), Congress amended the Clean
Water Act by adding Section 402(q). This amendment is commonly referred
to as the ``Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000.'' It requires that
each permit, order, or decree issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act
after the date of enactment for a discharge from a municipal combined
sewer system shall conform to the CSO Control Policy.

Developing New Requirements for Public Notice of CSO Events in the
Great Lakes Basin

    Section 425 requires EPA to work with the Great Lakes states to
create public notice requirements for combined sewer overflow
discharges to the Great Lakes. Section 425(b)(2) provides that the
notice requirements are to address the method of the notice, the
contents of the notice, and requirements for public availability of the
notice. Section 425(b)(3)(A) provides that at a minimum, the contents
of the notice are to include the dates and times of the applicable
discharge; the volume of the discharge; and a description of any public
access areas impacted by the discharge. Section 425(b)(3)(B) provides
that the minimum content requirements are to be consistent for all
affected States.
    Section 425(b)(4)(A) calls for follow-up notice requirements that
provide a description of each applicable discharge; the cause of the
discharge; and plans to prevent a reoccurrence of a combined sewer
overflow discharge to the Great Lakes consistent with section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) or an
administrative order or consent decree under such Act. Section
425(b)(4)(B) provides for annual publication requirements that list
each treatment works from which the Administrator or the affected State
receive a follow-up notice.
    Section 425(b)(5) requires that the notice and publication
requirements described in Section 425 shall be implemented by not later
than December 18, 2017. However, the Administrator of the EPA may
extend the implementation deadline for individual communities if the
Administrator determines the community needs additional time to comply
in order to avoid undue economic hardship. Finally, Section 425(b)(6)
clarifies that ``Nothing in this subsection prohibits an affected State
from establishing a State notice requirement in the event of a
discharge that is more stringent than the requirements described in
this subsection.''
    EPA is working with the Great Lakes States to identify and evaluate
options for implementing Section 425. EPA has also met with various
stakeholder groups that represent municipalities, industry
practitioners, and environmental organizations to hear each of their
perspectives. EPA will continue to meet with interested stakeholder
groups throughout the rulemaking process. In addition, the public
``listening session'' on September 14, 2016 will provide stakeholders
and other members of the public with an opportunity to share their
views regarding potential new public notification requirements for CSOs
in the Great Lakes Basin.

III. Input on Public Notice Considerations

    EPA and the Great Lake States will consider several options for
creating public notice requirements for CSOs in the Great Lakes Basin
under Section 425. In general, EPA and the Great Lake States are
requesting comment on public notice requirements that provide for:
     Immediate notice of CSO discharge events to local public
health officials and drinking water facilities. This notice is intended
to alert public health officials and drinking water facilities to
specific CSO discharges and support the development of appropriate
responses to the discharges.
     Immediate notice of CSO discharge events to the public via
text alerts, Web site notice, or other appropriate means. This notice
is intended to alert the public to CSO discharges which may allow them
to take steps to reduce their potential exposure to pathogens
associated with the discharges.
     Immediate notice of CSO discharge events to the NPDES
permitting authority. NPDES permits establish requirements to report
CSO discharges to the NPDES authority. 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) provides
minimum requirements to report certain CSO discharges to the NPDES
authority within 24 hours.
     Annual CSO notice. The annual CSO notice is intended to
provide the public with a description of the current performance of
their system as well as progress being made to reduce CSOs.
    EPA solicits information from the public regarding any aspect of
Section 425 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, including:
    (1) What means of receiving immediate notice of CSO discharge
events is most helpful to the public?
    (2) What should ``immediate'' mean in this context? How soon after
a CSO discharge event commences should the public and local public
health agencies be given notice?
    (3) What type of information would be most appropriate for
immediate notices? In addition to the statutorily required elements of
(i) the dates and times of the applicable discharge; (ii) the volume of
the discharge; and (iii) a description of any public access areas
impacted by the discharge; what other pieces of information would be
beneficial for the public, local public health agencies, public
drinking water providers, etc. to receive as part of the public notice?
    (4) What role should local public health agencies have in
identifying immediate notification requirements?
    (5) How should annual notices be made available to the public?
    (6) What information should be included in annual notices and who
should prepare the annual notices?
    (7) Do EPA's requirements to notify NPDES permitting authorities
under 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4), (6) and (7) have a role in the new public
notice requirements?
    (8) What regulatory framework is most appropriate for immediate
notification requirements? For annual notices?
    In addition to participation in the meeting, members of the public
may share input through written comments to the public docket (see
ADDRESSES).

    Dated: July 26, 2016.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-18133 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35023-35026]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0012]

Proposed Modification to the List of Appropriate NRTL Program
Test Standards and the Scopes of Recognition of Several NRTLs

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA proposes to delete three test standards
from the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards; and update
the scopes of recognition of several NRTLs.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before August 23, 2018. All submissions must bear a postmark or
provide other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer

than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0012,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2013-0012) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection at the
OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Kevin Robinson at the below
address to obtain a copy of the ICR.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before August 23, 2018 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson, NRTL
Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. OSHA's
web page includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov).
    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies of this
Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
This Federal Register notice, as well as other relevant information, is
also available on OSHA's web page at http://www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The NRTL Program recognizes organizations that provide product
safety testing and certification services to manufacturers. These
organizations perform testing and certification, for purposes of the
Program, to U.S. consensus-based product safety test standards. The
products covered by the NRTL Program consist of those items for which
OSHA safety standards require ``certification'' by a NRTL. The
requirements affect electrical products and 38 other types of products.
OSHA does not develop or issue these test standards, but generally
relies on standards development organizations (SDOs) which develop and
maintain the standards using a method that provides input and
consideration of views of industry groups, experts, users, consumers,
governmental authorities and others having broad experience in the
safety field involved.

Removal of Test Standards From the NRTL List of Appropriate Test
Standards

    OSHA may propose to remove a test standard from the NRTL list of
appropriate test standards based on an internal review in which NRTL
Program staff review the NRTL list of appropriate test standards to
determine if the test standard conforms to the definition of
appropriate test standard defined in NRTL Program regulations and
policy. There are several reasons for removing a test standard based on
the internal review by NRTL Program staff. First, a document that
provides the methodology for a single test is a test method rather than
an appropriate test standard. A test standard must specify the safety
requirements for a specific type of product(s) (29 CFR 1910.7(c)). A
test method, however, is a ``specified technical procedure for
performing a test'' (CPL 1-0.3, App. B). As such, a test method is not
an appropriate test standard. While a NRTL may use a test method to
determine if certain safety requirements are met, a test method is not
itself a safety requirement for a specific product category.
    Second, a document that focuses primarily on usage, installation,
or maintenance requirements would also not be considered an appropriate
test standard (CPL 1-0.3, App. D.IV.B). In some cases, however, a
document may also provide safety test specifications in addition to
usage, installation, and maintenance requirements. In such cases, the
document would be retained as an appropriate test standard based on the
safety test specifications.
    Finally, a document may not be considered an appropriate test
standard if the document covers products for which OSHA does not
require testing and certification (CPL 1-0.3, App. D.IV.A).
    Similarly, a document that covers electrical product components
would not be considered an appropriate test standard. These documents
apply to types of components that have limitation(s) or condition(s) on
their use, in that they are not appropriate for use as end-use
products. These documents also specify that these types of components
are for use only as part of an end-use product. NRTLs, however,
evaluate such components only in the context of evaluating whether end-
use products requiring NRTL approval are safe for use in the workplace.
Testing such components alone would not indicate that the end-use
products containing the components are safe for use. Accordingly, as a
matter of policy, OSHA considers that documents covering such
components are not appropriate test standards under the NRTL Program.
OSHA notes, however, that it is not proposing to delete from NRTLs'
scopes of recognition any test standards covering end-use products that
contain such components.
    OSHA may additionally propose to remove a test standard from the
NRTL list of appropriate test standards if it has been withdrawn by a
SDO. However, OSHA will recognize a NRTL for an appropriate replacement
test standard if the NRTL has the requisite testing and evaluation
capability for implementing the replacement test standard, and the
replacement standard does not require an additional or different
technical capability than an existing test standard. OSHA can add the
replacement test standard to affected NRTLs' scopes of recognition.

II. Proposal To Delete Test Standards From the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards

    In this notice, OSHA proposes to delete three test standards from
the

NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards.
    Table 1 lists the test standards that OSHA proposes to delete from
the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards, as well as an
abbreviated rationale for OSHA's proposed actions. For a full
discussion of the rationale, see, above, Section I of this notice.

     Table 1--Test Standards OSHA Proposes To Delete From NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Proposed replacement test standard(s)  (if
    Proposed deleted test standard      Reason for proposed deletion                  applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISA 60079-2..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          None.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-5..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          None.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-18.........................  Standard Withdrawn by          None.
                                        Standards Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Modifications to Affected NRTLs' Scopes of Recognition

    In this notice, OSHA proposes to update the scopes of recognition
of several NRTLs. The tables in this section (Table 2 thru Table 5)
list, for each affected NRTL, the test standard(s) that OSHA proposes
to delete from the scope of recognition of the NRTL and the proposed
appropriate replacement test standard. OSHA's analysis shows that the
proposed replacement standards do not require additional or different
technical capability than the proposed deleted standards so that the
proposed replacement standards are comparable to the proposed deleted
standards. These proposed replacement standards are already on the NRTL
List of Appropriate Test Standards.
    OSHA seeks comment on whether its proposed deletions are
appropriate, and whether individual tables omit any appropriate
replacement test standard that is comparable to a withdrawn test
standard. If OSHA determines any appropriate replacement test standard
that is comparable to a withdrawn test standard was omitted, then the
final determination will incorporate that replacement test standard
into the scope of recognition of each affected NRTL.
    Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and
exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request
in writing, stating the reasons for the request, by the due date for
comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester
justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if it is not adequately justified.

  Table 2--Test Standards OSHA Proposes To Delete From the Scope of Recognition of the Underwriters Laboratory,
                                Inc. and the Proposed Replacement Test Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed replacement test standard(s) (if
    Proposed deleted test standard      Reason for proposed deletion                  applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISA 60079-2..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-2.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-5..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-5.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-18.........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-18.
                                        Standards Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 3--Test Standards OSHA Proposes To Delete From the Scope of Recognition of CSA Group Testing and
                         Certification Inc. and the Proposed Replacement Test Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed replacement test standard(s) (if
    Proposed deleted test standard      Reason for proposed deletion                  applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISA 60079-2..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-2.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-5..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-5.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-18.........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-18.
                                        Standards Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 4--Test Standards OSHA Proposes To Delete From the Scope of Recognition of Intertek Testing Services, NA,
                                Inc. and the Proposed Replacement Test Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed replacement test standard(s) (if
    Proposed deleted test standard      Reason for proposed deletion                  applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISA 60079-2..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-2.*
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-5..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-5.*
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-18.........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-18.*
                                        Standards Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This NRTL already has the proposed replacement test standard(s) in its NRTL Scope of Recognition.

Table 5--Test Standards OSHA Proposes To Delete From the Scope of Recognition of SGS North America, Inc. and the
                                       Proposed Replacement Test Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Proposed replacement test standard(s) (if
    Proposed deleted test standard      Reason for proposed deletion                  applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISA 60079-2..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-2.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-5..........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-5.
                                        Standards Organization.
ISA 60079-18.........................  Standard Withdrawn by          UL 60079-18.
                                        Standards Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To obtain or review copies of comments submitted to the docket,
contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These
materials will also be available online at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. OSHA-2013-0012.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health regarding the removal of three test
standards from the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards
and to update the scopes of recognition of several NRTLs. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision. In making this decision, the
Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this
final decision in the Federal Register.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2)), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 18, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-15774 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 52037-52038]
[DOCID:fr24au10-98]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0037]

Welding, Cutting and Brazing Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to extend the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Welding, Cutting and Brazing
Standard (29 CFR part 1910, subpart Q). The information collected is
used by employers and workers whenever welding, cutting and brazing are
performed. The purpose of the information is to ensure that employers
evaluate hazards associated with welding and ensure that adequate
measures are taken to make the process safe.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
October 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0037,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (Docket No.
OSHA-2010-0037). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled ``Supplementary
Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and

OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Section 1910.255(e) requires that a periodic inspection of
resistance welding equipment be made by qualified maintenance
personnel, and that a certification record be generated and maintained.
The certification shall include the date of the inspection, the
signature of the person who performed the inspection and the serial
number, or other identifier, for the equipment inspected. The record
shall be made available to an OSHA inspector upon request. The
maintenance inspection ensures that welding equipment is in safe
operating condition while the maintenance record provides evidence to
workers and Agency compliance officers that employers performed the
required inspections.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Welding, Cutting
and Brazing (29 CFR part 1910, subpart Q). The Agency is requesting to
reduce its current burden hour estimate associated with this Standard
from 5,994 hours to 5,935 hours for a total reduction of 59 hours. The
reduction is a result of a decrease in the estimated number of
resistance welders. The Agency will summarize any comments submitted in
response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to
OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Welding, Cutting and Brazing (29 CFR part 1910, subpart Q).
    OMB Number: 1218-0207.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 42,328.
    Frequency: On occasion; Semiannually.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 1 minute (.02 hour) to
maintain the inspection certification record to 7 minutes (.12 hour) to
perform the inspection and to generate and maintain the inspection
certification record.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5,935.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0037). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007
(67 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 16, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-21055 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Notice of Receipt of a Clean Air Act Waiver Application to Increase the
Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent

Date	EPA Attendees	Name of Organization 	Summary of Discussion 	Written
Comments Provided?

Did they also submit to Docket?	Date sent to EPA

11/02/2009

	Gina McCarthy

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Lawrence Elworth

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	In Person:

Representatives from Growth Energy met with Gina McCarthy and Lawrence
Elworth.  Attendees included Tom Buis and Rob Skjonsberg.	Growth Energy
discussed their E15 waiver application and comments.  Additionally,
Growth Energy inquired about the upcoming Renewable Fuels Standard final
rulemaking.	No.  Growth Energy submitted comments to the docket.
7/21/2009


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56769-56770]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510 and 520

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0002]

New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor; Change of Sponsor Address;
Lincomycin and Spectinomycin Soluble Powder; Sulfadimethoxine Oral
Solution and Soluble Powder; Tiamulin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor for three abbreviated
new animal drug applications (ANADAs) from Teva Animal Health, Inc., to
Phibro Animal Health Corp. FDA is also amending the regulations to
reflect a change of sponsor's address for Phibro Animal Health Corp.
and for Eka Chemicals, Inc.

DATES: This rule is effective September 14, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven D. Vaughn, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7520
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Teva Animal Health, Inc., 3915 South 48th
Street Ter., St. Joseph, MO 64503, has informed FDA that it has
transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, ANADA 200-258
for Sulfadimethoxine Soluble Powder, ANADA 200-344 for Tiamulin Soluble
Antibiotic, and ANADA 200-345 for Lincomycin-Spectinomycin Soluble
Powder to Phibro Animal Health Corp., 65 Challenger Rd., 3d floor,
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660.
    In addition, Phibro Animal Health Corp. has informed FDA of a
change of address to GlenPointe Centre East, 3d floor, 300 Frank W.
Burr Blvd., suite 21, Teaneck, NJ 07666. Eka Chemicals, Inc., 1775 West
Oak Commons Ct., Marietta, GA 30062 has informed FDA of a change of
address to 1850 Parkway Pl. SE., suite 1200, Marietta, GA 30067.
Accordingly, the Agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR 510.600
to reflect these changes.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Part 520

    Animal drugs.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and
520 are amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

0
2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), revise the
entries for ``Eka Chemicals, Inc.'' and ``Phibro Animal Health''; and
in the table in paragraph (c)(2), revise the entries for ``061088'' and
``066104'' to read as follows:

Sec.  510.600  Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of
approved applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Firm name and address                  Drug labeler code
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Eka Chemicals, Inc., 1850 Parkway Pl. SE., suite                  061088
 1200, Marietta, GA 30067..........................

                              * * * * * * *
Phibro Animal Health Corp., GlenPointe Centre East,               066104
 3d floor, 300 Frank W. Burr Blvd., suite 21,
 Teaneck, NJ 07666.................................

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Drug labeler code                  Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
061088.............................  Eka Chemicals, Inc., 1850 Parkway
                                      Pl. SE., suite 1200, Marietta, GA
                                      30067

                              * * * * * * *
066104.............................  Phibro Animal Health Corp.,
                                      GlenPointe Centre East, 3d floor,
                                      300 Frank W. Burr Blvd., suite 21,
                                      Teaneck, NJ 07666

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  520.1265  [Amended]

0
4. In paragraph (b)(2) of Sec.  520.1265, remove ``Nos. 057561, 059130,
and 061623'' and in its place add ``Nos. 057561, 061623, and 066104''.

Sec.  520.2220a  [Amended]

0
5. In paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  520.2220a, remove ``Nos. 000069,
054925, 057561, 058829, 059130, and 061623'' and in its place add
``Nos. 000069, 054925, 057561, 058829, 061623, and 066104''.

Sec.  520.2455  [Amended]

0
6. In paragraph (b)(2) of Sec.  520.2455, remove ``No. 059130'' and in
its place add ``No. 066104''.

    Dated: September 6, 2012.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2012-22646 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10355-10356]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0755; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-12-AD;
Amendment 39-16956; AD 2012-04-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 800
Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all RR RB211-Trent 800 series turbofan engines. That AD currently
requires removal from service of certain critical engine parts based on
reduced life limits. This new AD reduces the life limits of additional
critical engine parts. This AD was prompted by RR reducing the life
limits of additional critical engine parts. We are issuing this AD to
prevent the failure of critical rotating parts, which could result in
uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective March 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England,
DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418 or email
from http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp, or download
the publication from https://www.aeromanager.com. You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2003-16-
18, amendment 39-13271 (68 FR 49344, August 18, 2003). That AD applies
to the specified products. That SNPRM published in the Federal Register
on November 7, 2011 (76 FR 68663). The original NPRM (75 FR 45560,
August 3, 2010) proposed to revise the Trent 800 Time limits Manual
(TLM) of the Trent 800 engine maintenance manuals (EMMs). The SNPRM
proposed to prohibit installation of one certain critical part and to
increase the life of another critical part whose lives were previously
reduced by that existing AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM (76 FR 68663, November 7,
2011).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD affects
about 16 RB211-Trent 800 series turbofan engines of U.S. registry. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour, but no labor cost is
associated with this AD because discs are replaced at scheduled
maintenance intervals. Prorated cost of parts cost about $45,000 per
engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $720,000.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2003-16-18, Amendment 39-13271 (68 FR 49344, August 18, 2003) and
adding the following new AD:

2012-04-01 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-16956; Docket No. FAA-2010-
0755; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-12-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 28, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2003-16-18, Amendment 39-13271 (68 FR
49344, August 18, 2003).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 895-17, 892-
17, 892B-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 877-17, and 875-17 turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by RR reporting changes to the lives of
certain life-limited rotating parts. We are issuing this AD to
prevent the failure of critical rotating parts, which could result
in uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Compliance is required within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, unless already done.
    (1) After the effective date of this AD, remove from service the
parts listed in Table 1 of this AD before exceeding the new life
limit indicated:

                                           Table 1--Reduced Part Lives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Life in       Life in cycles
                      Part nomenclature                         Part No. (P/N)   standard duty   using the HEAVY
                                                                                cycles          profile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Intermediate-pressure (IP) Compressor Rotor Shaft........          FK24100            8,140            8,140
(ii) IP Compressor Rotor Shaft...............................          FK24496            8,860            8,180
(iii) High-pressure (HP) Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs           FK24009            4,560            4,460
 Shaft.......................................................
(iv) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft............          FK26167            6,340            6,000
(v) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft.............          FK32580            8,550            6,850
(vi) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft............          FW11590            8,550            6,850
(vii) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft...........          FW61622            8,550            6,850
(viii) HP Compressor Stage 5 and 6 Discs and Cone............          FK25230            5,000            5,000
(ix) HP Compressor Stage 5 and 6 Discs and Cone..............          FK27899            5,000            5,000
(x) IP Turbine Rotor Disc....................................          FK21117           11,610           10,400
(xi) IP Turbine Rotor Disc...................................          FK33083                0                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any IP
turbine rotor discs, P/N FK33083, into any engine.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) You may find additional information on calculating Standard
Duty Cycles and/or using HEAVY Profile Cycles, in RR Time Limits
Manual 05-00-01-800-801, Recording and Control of the Lives of
Parts.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Strom,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0003R1, dated January 15, 2009, and RR Alert Service
Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE935, Revision 7, dated January 19, 2009,
for related information.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24
8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-
249936; email from http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; or Web: https://www.aeromanager.com.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 10, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-3863 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P