[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20602-20605]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8995]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0335; FRL-9294-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Proposed Disapproval of Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Revision for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act), EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the Texas CAA
section 110(a)(2) ``Infrastructure'' State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal addressing significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in another state with respect to the 2006
24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). On November 23, 2009, the State of Texas, through
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), submitted a SIP
to EPA intended to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)
for ``infrastructure.'' In this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove
the portion of the Texas' SIP revision submittal that intended to
address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements prohibiting a
state's emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. The
rationale for the disapproval action of the SIP revision is described
in this proposal. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2011-0335, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-
0335. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
(214) 665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of Texas' submittal?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?

    We are proposing to disapprove a submission from the State of Texas
intended to demonstrate that Texas has adequately addressed the
elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that require the State's SIP
to contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from
sources within a state from significantly contributing to nonattainment
in or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. We are proposing to
determine that the Texas submission does not contain adequate
provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the state
that significantly contribute to nonattainment in or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other
downwind states. Any remaining elements of the submittal, including
language to address other CAA Section 110(a)(2) elements, are not
addressed in this action. EPA is proposing to disapprove only the
provisions which relate to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This action is being taken under
section 110 of the CAA.

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

    On December 18, 2006, we revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
requires states to submit infrastructure SIPs to address a new or
revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of such standards, or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. The rule was published in the Federal Register on October 17,
2006 and became effective December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). Because
EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP submittals,
these submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on September
21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006 signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure
SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. On
September 25, 2009, we issued our ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(2009 Guidance). We developed the 2009 Guidance to make recommendations
to states for making submissions to meet the requirements of section
110, including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As identified in the 2009 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state to submit a
SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in the
ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four
distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport.
The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other states; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with
efforts to protect visibility in other states.
    In the 2009 Guidance, we indicated that SIP submissions from States
pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere with
maintenance'' requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) should contain
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the
state that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. We further indicated that
the state's submission should explain whether or not emissions from the
state have this impact and, if so, address the impact. We stated that
the state's conclusion should be supported by an adequate technical
analysis. We recommended the various types of information that could be
relevant to support the state SIP submission, such as information
concerning emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the
state and the potentially impacted states, monitored ambient
concentrations in the state, and air quality modeling. Furthermore, we
indicated that states should address the ``interfere with maintenance''
requirement independently which requires an evaluation of impacts on
areas of other states that are meeting the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated nonattainment.
Lastly in the 2009 Guidance, we stated that states could not rely on
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
    We promulgated the CAIR on May 12, 2005, (see 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required states to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any downwind
state. CAIR was intended to provide states covered by the rule with a
mechanism to satisfy their CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
to address significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and
interference with maintenance in another state with respect to the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR
provisions and submitted SIPs to us to demonstrate compliance with the
CAIR requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations for those two pollutants.
    We were sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR Federal Implementation Plans (FIP) in their
entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 11, 2008).
However, in response to our petition for rehearing, the Court issued an
order remanding CAIR to us without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR
FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). The
Court thereby left CAIR in place in order to ``temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR'' until we replace it with a rule
consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court directed us
to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion,
but declined to impose a schedule on us for completing that action. Id.
In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, we have proposed a new
rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's evaluation of Texas' submittal?

    On November 23, 2009, the State of Texas, through TCEQ, provided a
SIP revision to us intended to address the requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS as well
as other requirements of Section 110(a)(2). In this rulemaking, we are
addressing only the requirements of Section 110(a)(2) that pertain to
prohibiting sources in Texas from emitting pollutants that will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.

    In its submission, Texas certified that the State is meeting its
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations by virtue of its CAIR SIP for
PM2.5. Texas specifically said that it submitted a SIP
revision to implement CAIR and is currently in the process of revising
the CAIR SIP and rule to account for federal rule revisions and state
legislative changes.\3\ Irrespective, CAIR was promulgated before the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was revised in 2006, and as mentioned
above neither CAIR nor any of the State's revisions to its CAIR program
address interstate transport with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\4\ Thus, reliance on CAIR and the State's CAIR SIP provisions
cannot be used to comply with Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
respective 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On July 30, 2007, we approved as an abbreviated SIP revision
for the allowance allocation methodologies for Phase 1 of the CAIR
NOX annual trading program and the Compliance Supplement
Pool; see 72 FR 41453. The subsequent SIP revision was submitted to
EPA for review in March 4, 2010, and was submitted to address our
timing concerns with the Texas allowance allocation methodology for
Phase 2 of the CAIR NOX annual trading program. EPA has
not acted on this subsequent SIP revision submittal and is not
taking action on it at this time.
    \4\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal, the DC Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's
quantification of states' significant contribution and interference
with maintenance in CAIR was improper and remanded the rule to EPA.
CAIR remains in effect only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that several states in their submission claim that
controls planned for or already installed on sources within the state
to meet the CAIR provisions satisfied the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. However,
states will not be able to rely permanently upon the emissions
reductions predicted by CAIR, because CAIR was remanded to us and will
not remain in force permanently. Furthermore, we are in the process of
developing a new Transport Rule to address the concerns of the Court as
outlined in its decision remanding CAIR. For these reasons, we would
not be able to approve Texas' SIP submission pertaining to the
requirements under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because it relies on CAIR
for emission reduction measures.
    Based upon our evaluation, we are proposing that this SIP revision
does not meet the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove the portion of the Texas
Infrastructure SIP submission intended to demonstrate that its SIP
meets the Interstate Transport requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of
the CAA for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The portion of the Texas
submission that addresses 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is severable from the
remainder of the Texas submittal which addresses other elements of
110(a)(2), meaning our disapproval of this element does not impact the
other elements of the Texas submission which we will address in
separate Federal Register actions. Therefore, we are proposing to
disapprove only those provisions which relate to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
demonstration and to take no action on the remainder of the elements
and their demonstrations at this time.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C.A. Sec. Sec.
7501-7515) or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in Sec.  7410(k)(5) (SIP call), starts a
sanctions clock. The provisions in the submittal we are proposing to
disapprove were not submitted to meet either of those requirements.
Therefore, if we take final action to disapprove this submittal, no
sanctions will be triggered. The full or partial disapproval of a
required State Implementation Plan revision triggers the requirement
under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years
from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the
deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision
before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. In our Transport Rule
proposal we took comment on whether we should include Texas in a FIP
for PM2.5 (75 FR 45210, 45284). The finalized Transport Rule
may serve as the FIP that EPA intends to implement for the State.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new information collection burdens but simply disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements
but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher
offset requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not
mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply in
Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997).This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself
create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to
disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not
in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does not
provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898.

K. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: April 5, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2011-8995 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

03/07/2008 02:29 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

Implementation section of 2008 O3 NAAQS FR

Heidi, Margo and Rob,

Here is the new section on implementation that would come after the monitoring section in the preamble.  It would be a new section VI and it embeds the earlier section called "Related Control Programs".


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15583-15584]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31359; Amdt. No. 3947]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective March 24, 2021. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of March 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 5, 2021.
Wade Terrell Aviation Safety,
Manager, Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and
Procedures Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 22 April 2021

Courtland, AL, Courtland, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED
Sacramento, CA, KMHR, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Orig
San Diego, CA, KMYF, ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, Amdt 4D
Orlando, FL, KMCO, ILS OR LOC RWY 18R, Amdt 11
Orlando, FL, KMCO, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY
35R (CAT II), ILS RWY 35R (CAT III), Amdt 5
Orlando, FL, KMCO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18R, Amdt 2
Orlando, FL, KMCO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35R, Amdt 2
Orlando, FL, KMCO, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36L, Amdt 3
Orlando, FL, KMCO, VOR/DME RWY 18L, Amdt 5F, CANCELLED
Orlando, FL, KMCO, VOR/DME RWY 18R, Amdt 5F, CANCELLED
Atlanta, GA, KPUJ, ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, KPUJ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 2
Atlanta, GA, KPUJ, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, KFTY, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 2
Evansville, IN, Evansville Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
9A
Paducah, KY, KPAH, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 10E
Williamsburg, KY, Williamsburg-Whitley County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt
1C
Beverly, MA, KBVY, LOC RWY 16, Amdt 8
Beverly, MA, Beverly Rgnl, VOR RWY 16, Amdt 5E, CANCELLED
Fitchburg, MA, KFIT, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Fitchburg, MA, KFIT, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Orig-D, CANCELLED
Fitchburg, MA, KFIT, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 1
Stow, MA, 6B6, VOR/DME RWY 21, Amdt 3E, CANCELLED
Pinecreek, MN, Piney Pinecreek Border, NDB RWY 33, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Pinecreek, MN, 48Y, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-C
Helena, MT, KHLN, ILS OR LOC Y RWY 27, Amdt 3D
Helena, MT, KHLN, VOR-A, Amdt 15C
Helena, MT, KHLN, VOR-B, Amdt 7C
Alamogordo, NM, Alamogordo-White Sands Rgnl, Corona One Graphic DP
Alamogordo, NM, Alamogordo-White Sands Rgnl, Corona Two Graphic DP,
CANCELLED
Alamogordo, NM, Alamogordo-White Sands Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Ogdensburg, NY, KOGS, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 2
Plattsburgh, NY, Plattsburgh Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 2A
Wharton, TX, KARM, NDB RWY 14, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Wharton, TX, KARM, NDB RWY 32, Orig-A, CANCELLED
Land O'Lakes, WI, KLNL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-C
Land O'Lakes, WI, KLNL, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-C

[FR Doc. 2021-06054 Filed 3-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 22874]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 10-D, OMB Control No. 3235-0604, SEC File No. 270-544.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on this collection
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management Budget
for approval.
    Form 10-D (17 CFR 249.312) is used by asset-backed issuers to file
periodic distribution reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) under the
Securities Exchange Act 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.)
within 15 days after each required distribution date. The information
provided by Form 10-D is mandatory and all information is made
available to the public upon request. Form 10-D takes approximately 30
hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 1,000
respondents. Each respondent files an estimated 10 Form 10-Ds per year
for a total of 10,000 responses. We estimate that 75% of the 30 hours
per response (22.5 hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual
reporting burden of 225,000 hours (22.5 hours per response x 10,000
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 26, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10032 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12243-12245]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0898; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-200-AD;
Amendment 39-15856; AD 2009-06-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200 and 767-300 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Boeing Model 767-200 and 767-300 series airplanes. This AD requires
detailed inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead for damage, mid-
frequency eddy current (MFEC) and low frequency eddy current (LFEC)
inspections of radial web lap splices, tear strap splices, and super
tear strap splices for cracking, and corrective actions if necessary.
This AD results from analysis that indicates fatigue cracks of the web
lap splice, tear strap splice, or super tear strap splice of the aft
bulkhead are expected to occur on certain Boeing Model 767-200 and 767-
300 series airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
fatigue cracks of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in
rapid decompression of the passenger compartment and possible damage or
interference with airplane control systems that penetrate the bulkhead,
and consequent loss of controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective April 28, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 28,
2009.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the 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: Tamara L. Anderson, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain Boeing Model 767-200 and 767-300 series airplanes. That NPRM
was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2008 (73 FR 49366).
That NPRM proposed to require detailed inspections of the aft pressure
bulkhead for damage, mid-frequency eddy current (MFEC) and low
frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections of radial web lap splices,
tear strap splices, and super tear strap splices for cracking, and
corrective actions if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Refer to AD 2003-18-10

    Boeing and United Airlines ask that we refer to AD 2003-18-10,
amendment 39-13301 (68 FR 53503, September 11, 2003) in the AD.
    Boeing states that AD 2003-18-10 requires a revision of the Boeing
767 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document D622T001-9 to incorporate
the October 2002 revision, and Appendix B of the Boeing 767 MPD
Document D622T001 to incorporate the December 2002 revision, for Model
767 line numbers 1-895. Boeing adds that the inspection requirements of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007,
supersede the Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001-9 and Document D622T001,
Appendix B, inspections for Structural Significant Items (SSI) 53-80-
I01B, C, D, and E. Boeing concludes that the NPRM affects the
requirements of AD 2003-18-10 and asks that a reference to that AD be
added to the ``Affected ADs'' paragraph of the NPRM.
    United Airlines (UAL) states that a reference to AD 2003-18-10
should be included because paragraph 1.F. of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007, states that the
Accomplishment Instructions ``are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) to the inspections of SSI 53-80-I01B, C, D, and E of
Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001-9 and Appendix B of Boeing 767 MPD
Document D622T001 as required by paragraph (d) of Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 2003-18-10.'' In addition, due to the AD-related SSIs,
UAL states that the NPRM should include the SSI numbers specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007.

    We do not agree that AD 2003-18-10 should be referred to in this
AD. The ``Affected ADs'' paragraph is used to refer to the AD number of
supersedure and revision ADs only; we consider AD 2003-18-10 a
``related AD,'' not a supersedure or revision. AD 2003-18-10 applies to
certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. That AD currently requires
revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the MPD Document (767
Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALI)). AD 2003-18-10 also
incorporates into the ALI certain inspections and compliance times to
detect fatigue cracking of principal structural elements (PSEs). AD
2003-18-10 is already referred to in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
53A0147, dated August 16, 2007, and since that service bulletin is the
source of service information for accomplishing the required actions in
this AD it is not necessary to refer to AD 2003-18-10 in this AD. We
have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Requests To Clarify the Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC)
Paragraph Relative to AD 2003-18-10

    Boeing asks that we clarify the AMOC paragraph to ensure that AMOCs
for repairs are required only for the requirements of the NPRM, not the
requirements of AD 2003-18-10 that are specifically superseded in
paragraph 1.F. ``Approval,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
53A0147, dated August 16, 2007. Boeing states that the inspections in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007,
supersede the Boeing 767 MPD Document D622T001-9 and Document D622T001,
Appendix B, inspections for SSI 53-80-I01B, C, D, and E. Boeing adds
that if cracks are found and repaired, an AMOC to the superseded
inspections of AD 2003-18-10 specifically referenced in the above
sentence is not required or applicable. Boeing asks that paragraph
(g)(3) of the NPRM be changed to add the following: Alternative
inspections for repair configurations require an AMOC to this AD only,
not the requirements of AD 2003-18-10, which have been superseded by
the inspection in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated
August 16, 2007. This AMOC applies only to the areas inspected as
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August
16, 2007.
    Delta Airlines states that all repairs that would receive an AMOC
to any of the repetitive inspections required by this AD (in the
repaired area) should automatically be considered as having received an
AMOC to the respective and equivalent inspections required by AD 2003-
18-10. Delta adds that this is for SSIs 53-80-I01B, C, D, and E, as
specified in paragraph 1.F. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
53A0147, dated August 16, 2007. Delta notes that the operator should
not have to apply for such an AMOC.
    We do not agree that an AMOC is not necessary for inspection
requirements in areas repaired as required by AD 2003-18-10. The
repairs required by this AD affect the ability to accomplish certain
inspections required by AD 2003-18-10, resulting in the need for an
AMOC to that AD. The AMOC provided in paragraph 1.F. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007, allows for only
the inspections in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated
August 16, 2007, to be an AMOC to certain inspections in AD 2003-18-10.
That AMOC does not include approval of inspections as a separate AMOC
to this AD as a result of a repair in repaired areas. However, we agree
that inspections of repaired areas, if approved as an AMOC for the
inspection requirements of this AD, should also be approved as an AMOC
to the inspection required by AD 2003-18-10 for the repaired areas
only. Additionally, we agree that the AMOC paragraph should be
clarified relative to inspections of repaired areas as required by AD
2003-18-10. We have added paragraph (g)(4) to this AD for clarification
and to provide this AMOC approval.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the change described previously. This change will neither
increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of
the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 244 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 84 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions take about 31 work hours per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the AD for U.S. operators is $208,320, or $2,480 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.

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), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2009-06-19 Boeing: Amendment 39-15856. Docket No. FAA-2008-0898;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-200-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 28,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200 and 767-300 series
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from analysis that indicates fatigue cracks
of the web lap splice, tear strap splice, or super tear strap splice
of the aft bulkhead are expected to occur on certain Boeing Model
767-200 and 767-300 series airplanes. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracks of the aft pressure bulkhead,
which could result in rapid decompression of the passenger
compartment and possible damage or interference with airplane
control systems that penetrate the bulkhead, and consequent loss of
controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Inspections and Applicable Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (f) Except as provided by paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this
AD: At the applicable compliance time and repeat intervals listed in
Tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007, do detailed
inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead for damage, mid-frequency
eddy current (MFEC) and low frequency eddy current (LFEC)
inspections of radial web lap splices, tear strap splices, and super
tear strap splices for cracking, and applicable corrective actions,
by accomplishing all the applicable actions specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
    (1) Where Table 1 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated August 16, 2007, specifies
a compliance time after the date on that service bulletin, this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147, dated
August 16, 2007, specifies a compliance time of ``As given by
Boeing'' or to contact Boeing for the appropriate action, this AD
requires, before further flight, inspections of the area of repair
and repair of any damaged/cracked part, as applicable, using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Tamara L. Anderson, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch,
ANM-120S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington telephone (425)
917-6421; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Inspections of repaired areas approved as an AMOC for the
inspection requirements of this AD are also approved as an AMOC to
the inspections for the repaired areas only as required by paragraph
(d) of AD 2003-18-10.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-53A0147,
dated August 16, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-5961 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P