[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56704-56709]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0297; Product Identifier 2017-NM-181-AD; Amendment
39-19497; AD 2018-23-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -
231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -
212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
investigations that revealed that the cover seal of the brake dual
distribution valve (BDDV) was damaged and did not ensure efficient
sealing. This AD requires identifying the BDDV part number installed on
the airplane, and modifying or replacing BDDVs having certain part
numbers. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 19, 2018.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 19,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0297.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0297; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model
A319 series airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and
-232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 17,
2018 (83 FR 16799). The NPRM was prompted by investigations that
revealed that the cover seal of the BDDV was damaged and did not ensure
efficient sealing. The NPRM proposed to require identifying the BDDV
part number installed on the airplane, and modifying or replacing BDDVs
having certain part numbers.
    We are issuing this AD to address water ingestion in the BDDV,
freezing of the BDDV in flight, and consequent loss of braking system
function after landing. These conditions could possibly result in
damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0119, dated July 11, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319 series airplanes;
Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    In 1998, an operator experienced a dual loss of braking systems.
Investigation results revealed that the cover seal of the BDDV was
damaged and did not ensure the sealing efficiency.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to water ingestion
in the BDDV, freezing of the BDDV in flight, and consequent loss of
braking system function after landing, possibly resulting in damage
to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Alert
Operator Telex (AOT) 32-19 and Service Bulletin (SB) A320-32-1199,
providing instructions for repetitive functional tests. In addition,
Airbus developed mod 28301 and published SB A320-32-1203 to provide
modification instructions.
    Consequently, DGAC [Directorate General for Civil Aviation]
France issued AD 2000-258-146 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2001-15-
10, Amendment 39-12344 (66 FR 39413, July 31, 2001) (``AD 2001-15-
10'')] to require repetitive functional tests as a temporary
solution (valid for a period of 15 months) and modification of the
BDDV with a new cover and installation of a draining tube with a
cap, which was terminating action for the repetitive functional
tests. For pre-mod 27833 and pre-SB A320-32-1200 aeroplanes,
repetitive inspections per SB A320-32-1199 were required as interim
action, prior to the terminating action modification per SB A320-32-
1203.
    After that [DGAC] AD was issued, following a new event, Airbus
developed a new modification of the BDDV drain tube which leaves it
open, ensuring continuous drainage of any ingested water, thereby
preventing freezing of the brake system.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2014-0251 (later revised),
partially retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD 2000-258-146,
which was superseded, and requiring an additional modification of
the BDDV drain tube and re-identification of the BDDV.
    Since EASA AD 2014-0251R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2016-06-
13, Amendment 39-18444 (81 FR 17365, March 29, 2016) (``AD 2016-06-
13'')] was issued, comments were received that indicated a need for
correction and clarification. Consequently, this [EASA] AD retains
the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0251R1, which is superseded, and
expands the list of BDDV Part Numbers (P/N) which must be removed
from service and are no longer eligible for installation on an
aeroplane [and includes replacing affected part numbers as an
option]. This [EASA] AD also clarifies the intended requirements of
EASA AD 2014-0251 and introduces editorial changes, not affecting
the requirements.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0297.

Comments

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

Supportive Comments

    Air Line Pilots Association, International stated its support for
the NPRM. In addition, United Airlines (UAL) stated it concurs with the
expansion of the affected BDDV part numbers as identified in Figure 1
to paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    Delta Air lines (DAL) requested that we withdraw the NPRM. DAL
stated that the NPRM does not address an unsafe condition and,
therefore, it is unnecessary. DAL commented that airplanes included in
paragraph (c) of the proposed AD are already required to comply with
the actions required by AD 2001-15-10, depending on modification
status. DAL also commented that the NPRM does not add any airplanes to
the applicability of AD 2001-15-10 and 2016-06-13. DAL stated that
tracking compliance with the redundant requirements of the proposed AD
would place an undue burden on airlines.
    DAL stated that paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(2)(i) of the proposed
AD give credit for actions accomplished using previously issued service
information. DAL commented that FAA Letter ANM-116-16-491, dated
September 27, 2016, gives operators the authority to accomplish
paragraph (g) of AD 2016-06-13 as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC), and it is also a terminating action for the actions required by
paragraphs (e) and (f) of AD 2001-15-10. DAL stated that the compliance
times for AD 2001-15-10 and AD 2016-06-13 have passed, therefore, all
airplanes must be in compliance.

    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We agree that
airplanes included in paragraph (c) of this AD are also required to
comply with AD 2001-15-10 and AD 2016-06-13, and that this AD does not
add any new Model airplanes related to those listed in AD 2001-15-10
and AD 2016-06-13. However, as stated in paragraph (i) of this AD,
compliance with paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements in
paragraphs (e) and (f) of AD 2001-15-10 (which terminates all
requirements of AD 2001-15-10 for Model A318, A319 and A320 series
airplanes) and all requirements of AD 2016-06-13. For clarification, we
have modified paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to state that compliance with
paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2001-15-10
for Model A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes. We agree that operators
will be required to track certain ADs with expired compliance times,
but we are in process of rescinding some of those ADs through future
rulemaking. We agree that AMOC letter ANM-116-16-491 dated September
27, 2016, will still be applicable to AD 2016-06-13.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to withdraw this AD. We,
along with EASA, have determined that water ingestion in the BDDV,
freezing of the BDDV in flight, and consequent loss of braking system
function after landing, could possibly result in damage to the airplane
and injury to occupants, and therefore, does constitute an unsafe
condition, and that additional mandatory actions in this AD are
required to mitigate the risks associated with the unsafe condition.
Further, even if the current U.S.-Registered fleet is in compliance
with the requirements of this AD, the issuance of the rule is still
necessary to ensure that any affected airplane imported and placed on
the U.S. Register in the future would be required to be in compliance
as well. This AD expands the list of BDDV part numbers, which must be
removed from service and are no longer eligible for installation on an
airplane. Therefore, all U.S.-Registered airplanes might not be in
compliance with the actions of this AD even when in full compliance
with AD 2001-15-10 and AD 2016-06-13. However, if DAL concludes that it
is in compliance with the requirements of this AD, then it may utilize
the provision in paragraph (f) to demonstrate compliance. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Correct Certain Wording

    DAL observed that the word ``actions'' was inadvertently omitted
from the first sentence in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD after
the word ``corrective.'' We agree and have added the missing word
accordingly.

Request To Revise Certain Wording for Clarification

    UAL requested that we revise the wording in certain paragraphs of
the proposed AD for clarification. UAL suggested that paragraph (g)(3)
of the proposed AD be reworded because the way it is currently written,
it could be interpreted as ``a part number specified as new P/N in
figure 2 to paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(2)'' cannot be installed.
    UAL also suggested that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD be revised
to eliminate paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) and be reworded to simply
prohibit the installation of affected BDDVs as specified in figure 1 to
paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD.
    We partially agree to the commenter's requests. We agree to clarify
paragraph (g)(3) of this AD. We have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this
AD to clarify that operators should replace the old part number with a
new part number as specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (g)(3) and
(h)(2) of this AD.
    However, we disagree to simply prohibit installation of discrepant
parts that are specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
AD from the effective date of this AD. Paragraph (h) provides operators
flexibility by providing the full compliance time as specified in
paragraph (g) to modify or replace discrepant parts, unless the
discrepant part is either currently installed as of the effective date
of this AD and is subsequently modified or replaced (after the
effective date of this AD) as stated in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, or
has already been modified or replaced as of the effective date of this
AD as stated in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Operators have the
discretion to prohibit operation with a discrepant part in figure 1 to
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD from the effective date of this AD.
We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Compliance Requirements

    JetBlue requested that we clarify the compliance requirements in
paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (h)(2) of the proposed AD because of
contradictory requirements. The commenter did not clearly identify
which requirements needed clarification.
    We do not agree to revise paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. This AD and
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-
1415, Revision 02, dated December 10, 2015, specify that, if corrosion
is found in a non-permitted area, replace the BDDV before further
flight. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
    As we stated previously, we have revised paragraph (g)(3) of this
AD to clarify that operators should replace the old part number with a
new part number as specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (g)(3) and
(h)(2) of this AD.
    We agree to clarify the compliance requirements of paragraph (h)(2)
of this AD. As stated in the previous comment response, paragraph (h)
is intended to provide operators flexibility by providing the full
compliance time as specified in paragraph (g) to modify or replace
discrepant parts. However, paragraph (h)(2) of this AD specifically
prohibits installation of a discrepant part as of the effective date of
this AD if the discrepant part has already been modified or replaced as
of the effective date of this AD. Paragraph (h)(1) of this AD prohibits
installation of a discrepant part as of the effective date of this AD,
if a discrepant part is currently installed as of the effective of this
AD, but is modified or replaced after the effective date of this AD.
Operators have the discretion to prohibit operation with a discrepant
part in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD from the
effective date of this AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1203, Revision 02,
dated February 9, 2001. This service information describes procedures
for identifying the BDDV part number installed on the airplane, and
modifying or replacing BDDVs having certain part numbers.
    Airbus SAS has also issued Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, Revision
02, dated December 10, 2015. This service information describes
procedures for

modifying and re-identifying the BDDV. The modification includes
modifying the drain hose of the BDDV, and doing all related
investigative and corrective actions if applicable. The related
investigative actions include an inspection for corrosion. Corrective
actions include replacing the BDDV.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,136 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                      Labor cost                 Parts cost               Cost per  product             Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identification and modification or   Up to 6 work-hours x    Up to $395.................  Up to $905.................  Up to $1,028,080.
 replacement.                         $85 per hour = $510.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-23-11 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19497; Docket No. FAA-2018-0297;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-181-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 19, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2001-15-10, Amendment 39-12344 (66 FR 39413,
July 31, 2001) (``AD 2001-15-10''), and AD 2016-06-13, Amendment 39-
18444 (81 FR 17365, March 29, 2016) (``AD 2016-06-13'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which Airbus
Modification 26925 has been embodied in production, which introduces
a modified alternate braking system that removes the brake dual
distribution valve (BDDV).
    (1) Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -
132, and -133 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (3) Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131,-211,-212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by investigations that revealed that the
cover seal of the brake dual distribution valve (BDDV) was damaged
and did not ensure efficient sealing. We are issuing this AD to
prevent water ingestion in the BDDV, freezing of the BDDV in flight,
and consequent loss of braking system function after landing. These
conditions could possibly result in damage to the airplane and
injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Identification and Modification or Replacement

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, identify
the BDDV part number installed on the airplane. For each affected
BDDV part number specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD, within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. A review
of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to identify the BDDV
part number if the part number of the BDDV can be conclusively
determined from that review.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO18.001

    (1) Modify and re-identify the affected BDDV, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-
1203, Revision 02, dated February 9, 2001.
    (2) Modify and re-identify the affected BDDV, and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-32-1415, Revision 02, dated December 10, 2015. Do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions before
further flight.
    (3) Replace the affected BDDV with a BDDV having a part number
not specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, or
replace the old part number with a new part number as specified in
figure 2 to paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(2) of this AD. Do the
replacement using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14NO18.002

 (h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or
(h)(2) of this AD, no person may install a BDDV having a part number
specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, on any
airplane.
    (1) For any airplane that, on the effective date of this AD, has
a BDDV installed with a part number specified in figure 1 to
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: After modification or replacement
of the BDDV, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) For any airplane that, on the effective date of this AD, has
a BDDV installed or replaced with a part number specified as `new P/
N' in figure 2 to paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(2) of this AD, or has a
BDDV installed or replaced with a part number not specified in
figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD: As of the effective
date of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for Other ADs

    (1) Doing the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the
requirements in paragraphs (e) and (f) of AD 2001-15-10 for Model
A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes.
    (2) Doing the actions in paragraph (g) of this AD terminates all
of the requirements of AD 2016-06-13.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using the service information in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1203, dated June 4, 1999,
which was incorporated by reference in AD 2001-15-10.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1203, Revision 01, dated
October 12, 2000.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
the effective date of this AD using the service information in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) or (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, dated September 2,
2014, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2016-06-13.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, Revision 01, dated
April 23, 2015.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's

maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an
AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done
and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0119, dated July 11, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0297.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1203, Revision 02, dated
February 9, 2001.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-32-1415, Revision 02, dated
December 10, 2015.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 5, 2018.
Christopher Spangenberg,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-24688 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SF-83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

	1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

	NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) (Renewal)

	1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

	The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), for the regulations published at 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD were proposed on January 18, 1977, and promulgated on August 3, 1978, and amended on October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61759).  These regulations apply to the following facilities in grain elevators: each truck unloading station, truck loading station, railcar unloading station, railcar loading station, grain dryer, and all grain handling operations commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after August 3, 1978.  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD.

	In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.  They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.  These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NSPS.  An annual summary report is also required.

	Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

	Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an average of one affected facility at each plant site and that each plant site has only one respondent (i.e., the owner/operator of the plant site).

	Approximately 200 respondents are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject to the regulation over the next three years.

	The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

	2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

	The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

	In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); (E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

	In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from facilities in grain elevators cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD.

	2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times.  During the performance test a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

	The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD.

	3(a)  Nonduplication

	If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

	3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 24020) on May 6, 2005.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

	3(c)  Consultations

	For the information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of the active ICR, and used other resources to obtain the most recent data available.  We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, the Air Facility System (AFS), and websites covering grain elevators.  We also consulted with the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer, the Program Integration Division, the National Grain and Feed Association, Mr. Randy Gordon,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Mr. Nick Lassiter, (919) 733-7139.

	3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and that emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

	3(e)  General Guidelines

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

	3(f)  Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)  Sensitive Questions

	None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

	The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are lime manufacturing plants.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents affected by the standards, which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for source category descriptions.

Standard (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Farm Product Warehouse and Storage	4221	493130

Grain and Field Beans (Agents and Brokers)	5153	425120

Grain and Field Beans (Business to Business Electronic Markets)	5153 425110

	4(b)  Information Requested

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

		(i)  Data Items

	All data in this ICR that are recorded and/or reported are required by NSPS Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD).

	A source must make the following reports:

Notifications	Standard Citation by Sections

Notification of construction/reconstruction	60.7(a)(1)

Notification of actual startup	60.7(a)(3)

Initial performance test	60.8(d)

Initial performance test results	60.8(a)

Repeat performance tests 	60.7(a)(4)

	A source must make the following reports:

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Record of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions	60.7(b)

Records are required to be retained for two years and kept onsite 60.7(f)

Annual summary report	60.7(d)

Electronic Reporting

	At the present, respondents are using monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the affected facility must evaluate the data, this internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at the plant site.

	Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 2, 5, 7, and 9 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the sources still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

	5(a)  Agency Activities

	EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

	5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs

	Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

	The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/operator for two years.

	5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

	A majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

	5(d)  Collection Schedule

	The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) (Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

	The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 2,070 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of this regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

		Managerial	$97.46   ($46.41 + 110%)

		Technical	$83.71   ($39.86 + 110%)

		Clerical	$42.55   ($20.26 + 110%)

	These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

		(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard are labor costs.  There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance.

		(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

	The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations is labor cost.  There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs.

	6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emission, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

	The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $35,297.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$56.02   (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6)

		Technical	$41.57   (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.50   (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6)

	These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2005 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) (Renewal).

	6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three years, approximately 200 existing respondents will be subject to the standard.  It is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject.  The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the table below is 200 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Respondents That Submit Reports

Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

Year

(A)

Number of New Respondents

(B)

Number of Existing Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents

(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	0	200	0	0	200

2	0	200	0	0	200

3	0	200	0	0	200

Average	0	200	0	0	200

	To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 200.  This number appears on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(a), Number of respondents.

	The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports

(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction	0	1	0	0

Notification of actual startup	0	1	0	0

Notification of initial performance test	0	1	0	0

Report of performance tests results	0	1.2	0	0

Annual Summary Report	200	1	0	200

	Total	200

	The number of Total Annual Responses is 200.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(b), Total annual responses.

	6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden and Cost Tables

	The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

		(i) Respondent Tally

	The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(c).  The total annual labor costs are $167,108.  The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83-I form.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost - NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD).  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.35 hours per response.

	The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $0.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

		(ii) The Agency Tally

	The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 920 labor hours at a cost of $35,297.  See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost - NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) (Renewal).

	6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The increase in burden hours from the most recently approved ICR is due primarily to a more accurate accounting of existing sources, an annual summary report that was inadvertently left out, a revised labor rate, and to the fact that we are currently accounting for management and clerical person hours per year which was not shown in the previous ICR.

	After a thorough analysis by the National Grain and Feed Association, they arrived at two hundred as the number of sources that are subject to subpart DD, as compared to one hundred and thirty-two in the previous ICR.

	There is no capital or operations and maintenance costs since there is no continuous monitoring.

	6(g)  Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.35 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

	An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0026, which is available for online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available through FDMS at www.regulations.gov.  Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0026 and OMB Control Number 2060-0082 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost - NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) (Renewal)

Burden item

(A)

Person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No.  of

Occurrences/respondent

per year

(C)

Person-

Hours/

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondent/

per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours/year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $  b

1.  Applications

N/A

2.  Survey and Studies

N/A

3.  Reporting Requirements

  A.  Read instructions

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

$0

  B.  Required activities:

        Initial performance tests c

28

1

28

0

0

0

0

$0

        Repeat of performance test d

28

0.2

5.6

0

0

0

0

$0

 C.   Create information

Included in 3B

 D.   Gather existing information

Included in 3B

 E.  Write report

      Notification of construction /            reconstruction

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

$0

      Notification of actual startup

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

$0

      Notification of initial                         performance test results

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

$0

      Notification of repeat                        performance test results

Included in 3B

     Report of performance test                results

8

1.2

9.6

0

0

0

0

$0

     Annual summary report

8

1

8

200

1,600

80

160

$148,540.80

  3.  Recordkeeping Requirements

 A.  Read instructions

Included in 3A

 B.  Plan activities

Included in 3B

 C.  Implement activities

Included in 3B

 D.  Develop record system

N/A

 E.  Time to enter information

Records of startup, shutdown,        malfunction

1

1

1

200

200

10

20

$18,567.60

F.  Time to train personnel

N/A

G. Time for audits

N/A

Subtotals Labor Burden and Cost

1,800

90

180

$167,108.40

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

2,070

$167,108

Assumptions:

a   There are an estimated total of 200 respondents nationwide which are subject to this standard.  We have further assumed that there will be no new net growth for this industry over the three year period of this ICR.

b   This ICR uses the following labor rates: $97.46 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $83.71 per hour for Technical labor, and $42.55 per hour for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

c  We have assumed that it will take twenty-eight hours to complete the initial performance test, which includes Method 9.

d  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will have to repeat the performance test.

e  We have assumed that it will take one hour to record information on startup, shutdown, malfunction

Table 2.  Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, subpart CC) (Renewal)

	Activity

(A)

EPA person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No. of

occurrences

per plant

per year

(C)

EPA person-

hours per

plant per

year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Plants

per

year  a

(E)

Technical

person-hours

per year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per

year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $ b

Initial  performance tests

24

1

24

0

0

0

0

$0

Repeat  performance test

24

0.2

4.8

0

0

0

0

$0

Report Review:

   Notification of construction

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

 $0

   Notification of actual startup

0.5

1

0.5

0

0

0

0

$0

   Notification of initial test

0.5

1.2

0.6

0

0

0

0

$0

   Review test results

8

1.2

9.6

0

0

0

0

$0

    Review annual summary report

4

1

4

200

800

40

80

$35,296.80

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	920

          $35,297

Assumptions:

a   We have assumed that there are approximately 200 respondents currently operating in the United States which are subject to the regulation.  It is estimated that no additional respondents will become subject to the regulation in the next three years based on information available on the sector.  Therefore, the average number of respondents per year is estimated to be 200.

b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses:  Managerial rate of $56.02 (GS-13, Step 5, $35.01 x 1.6), Technical rate of $41.57 (GS-12, Step 1, $25.98 x 1.6), and Clerical rate of $22.50 (GS-6, Step 3, $14.06 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2005 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.

 PAGE   14

 PAGE   15


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25725-25729]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11542]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9994-04-Region 7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Shaw Avenue Dump
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Operable Unit 1--Chemical Fill and
Contaminated Soil (OU1) of the Shaw Avenue Dump Superfund Site (Site)
located in Charles City, Floyd County, Iowa, from the National
Priorities List, or NPL, and requests public comments on this proposed
action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, or NCP. The EPA and
the state of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
have determined that all appropriate response actions at these
identified parcels under CERCLA, other than operations and maintenance
and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does
not preclude future actions under Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains to the Operable Unit 1--Chemical
Fill and Contaminated Soil. The Operable Unit 2--Groundwater will
remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part of
this action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1987-0002, by one of the following methods: https://www.regulations.gov follow the online instructions for submitting
comments; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or a7cfc8d2d4d3c8c989d7c6cac2cbc6e7c2d7c689c0c8d1;
or by mail to Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 Attention: Elizabeth Hagenmaier, Superfund
and Emergency Management Division (SEMD) or Pam Houston, Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs/Community Section (OIG). Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: EPA Region 7 Records Center at
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, between 8:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. Monday-Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hagenmaier, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, SEMD/LMSE,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA. This section provides additional information
by addressing the following:

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. Introduction
III. NPL Deletion Criteria
IV. Deletion Procedures
V. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2003-0010, at https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may
submit comments by email or mail to the persons and addresses listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this document. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Introduction

    The EPA Region 7 announces its intent to delete the OU1--Chemical
Fill and Contaminated Soil of the Shaw Avenue Dump Superfund Site
(Site), from the National Priorities List, or NPL, and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40
CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, or NCP, and which the EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA
maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to present a significant
risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL
may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous
Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Shaw Avenue
Dump Superfund Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e)
and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of
Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1,
1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site
deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action
if future conditions warrant such actions.
    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete
this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in
the Federal Register.
    Section III of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section IV discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section V discusses the OU1--Chemical Fill and
Contaminated Soil of the Shaw Avenue Dump Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

III. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will
consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts
five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial
actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain
at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure
continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes
available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system.

IV. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the OU1--Chemical
Fill and Contaminated Soil of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the state Iowa, through the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, before developing this Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) The EPA has provided the state thirty working days for review
of this document prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The state of Iowa, through the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources, has concurred with the deletion of the OU1--Chemical Fill
and Contaminated Soil of the Shaw Avenue Dump Superfund Site, from the
NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published
in a major local newspaper, the Charles City Press. The newspaper
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available
for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete the OU1--Chemical
Fill and Contaminated Soil of the Shaw Avenue Dump Superfund Site. If
necessary, the EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any
significant public comments received. After the public comment period,
if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the OU1--
Chemical Fill and Contaminated Soil, the Regional Administrator will
publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register.
Public notices, public submissions, and copies of the Responsiveness
Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and
included in the site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

V. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
OU1--Chemical Fill and Contaminated Soil of the Shaw Avenue Dump
Superfund Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Shaw Avenue Dump Superfund Site (Site), CERCLIS ID
#IAD980630560 is located on the southeastern edge of Charles City,
Floyd County, Iowa, approximately 600 feet from the Cedar River, near
the intersection of Shaw Avenue and Clark Street. The Site is owned by
Charles City, occupies approximately 24 acres of the Cedar River 100-
year floodplain, and was operated as a municipal disposal site from
prior to 1949 to 1964.
    Charles City purchased the northern area of the Site in 1899 and
continued to acquire adjoining property until 1964. The Site had been
used for an unknown amount of time prior to 1949 as a landfill/dump and
continued to be used as such through 1964.
    Two areas in the northern half of the Site were used from 1949 to
1953 to dispose of an estimated 14,000 to 28,000 cubic feet of arsenic-
contaminated solid waste generated by Salsbury Laboratories, Inc.
(later Solvay Animal

Health, Inc.) from the chemical batch processing of arsenic compounds
used in the production of animal pharmaceuticals. Salsbury
Laboratories, Inc., also generated liquid waste during the period
between 1949 and 1964 which it discharged to the municipal wastewater
treatment plant. Charles City then disposed of the generated sludges in
the Site's northern waste cells and in an undefined area on the
southern portion of the Site. An estimated 10,000 tons of this sludge
was disposed between 1949 and 1964. Remedial Investigation
characterization of the disposal cells containing Salsbury wastes
indicate the presence of significant concentrations of arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead and volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds, or VOCs and SVOCs.
    The Site was identified as a potentially hazardous waste site by
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, or IDNR in 1977. IDNR studied
the Site and documented arsenic contamination in surface water in an
abandoned gravel pit near the Site, issuing several reports between
1977 and 1981. No removal actions have been implemented at the Site. A
preliminary assessment was conducted in 1984.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Site was proposed for the NPL on September 18, 1985 (50 FR
37950) and listed as final on the NPL on July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620). A
remedial investigation, or RI, addressing soil contamination was
initiated in 1988 and completed in 1990. A second RI addressing
groundwater was initiated in 1992 and completed in 1999. In 1997,
separate from the Record of Decision, or ROD, or consent order
requirements discussed in the Selected Remedy section below, Charles
City closed/abandoned two private residential wells located near the
Site and provided these residences with connections to municipal water.
    Forty individual compounds, in addition to a group of similar
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, were identified as contaminants of potential
concern in the soil, surface water, groundwater, and chemical fill at
the Site. Major contaminants of concern include arsenic and cadmium.
The chemical fill and the adjacent contaminated soil were considered
the source of contamination for the groundwater. Using the
characterization data collected during the 1990 RI, a human health
baseline risk assessment was completed in 1991. Toxicity information
for all chemicals of concern were evaluated and exposures were assumed
based on reasonable assumptions about current and future uses of the
Site. A Risk Assessment Addendum was completed in 1998 in support of
the OU2 ROD. Human health risks were posed by a future residential use
of the Site, including ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact from
surface water, ground water, and soil. Based on the cancer risk levels
and hazard indices presented in the risk assessment addendum and the
institutional controls subsequently implemented prohibiting the
location of a residence or installation of a groundwater well, no
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment from exposure to
contaminated groundwater exists at the Shaw Avenue Dump site, assuming
no on-site well is installed for residential use.
    Ecological risks were also evaluated as part of the risk
assessment. In the 1991 human health baseline risk assessment, it was
determined that there were no critical habitats or endangered species
affected by the contamination at the Site and the impact on the Cedar
River was minimal. It was identified in the 2015 Five-Year Review, or
FYR, that ecological exposures to aquatic receptors in the Cedar River
were not adequately characterized in the 1991 human health baseline
risk assessment. Data was collected to support a 2017 FYR Addendum that
provided the necessary characterization to assess the protectiveness of
the remedy for the FYR.
    The Site consists of two operable units, each having a separate
Record of Decision, or ROD. OU1 addresses the chemical fill and
contaminated soil at the Site, and OU2 addresses groundwater
contamination.

Selected Remedy

    The OU1 ROD was signed on September 26, 1991. Remedy selection was
based on the following OU1 ROD Remedial Action Objectives:
     Eliminate or reduce to an acceptable level the risks posed
by exposure to the contaminated soil and chemical fill.
     Eliminate or reduce the potential migration of
contaminants into groundwater.
    Major components of the selected remedy, as described by the ROD,
are:
     Fixation/stabilization of chemical fill and contaminated
soil;
     Installation of a low-permeability cap to protect the
fixated/stabilized material, consisting of either a two-foot clay layer
covered by a two-foot fill and vegetated layers, or an eight-inch thick
reinforced concrete slab placed over the stabilized waste;
     Implementation of deed restrictions placed upon the
landfill property, which would prohibit the construction, installation,
maintenance, or use of any wells on the Site for the purposes of
extracting water for human drinking, bathing, or swimming purposes, or
for the irrigation of food or feed crops, as well as any construction
or intrusive activities at the Site;
     Installation of a fence and markers around the capped
fill;
     Removal of an underground gasoline tank associated with
the Charles City maintenance facility; and
     Groundwater monitoring during and after implementation of
the fixation/stabilization remedy to determine the effectiveness of the
remedy in preventing leaching of contaminants to groundwater.
    The ROD recognized that the full effectiveness of the fixation/
stabilization technology employed by the selected remedy would not be
known until treatability studies were conducted, and that the
possibility existed that the selected technology might not achieve
remediation objectives. For this possibility, the ROD selected
excavation and off-site removal as the contingency remedy. If needed,
the decision to change the remedy from fixation/stabilization to
excavation/removal would be explained in an Explanation of Significant
Differences, or ESD.
    The EPA entered into a Consent Decree on May 26, 1992, with Solvay
Animal Health, Inc., and Charles City, Iowa.
    Treatability studies yielded unacceptable results, and therefore,
an ESD was signed on March 24, 1992, which notified the public of the
decision to implement the contingency remedy of excavation and off-site
disposal. The ESD identified that ``the only difference from the
contingency remedy described in the ROD is that prior to disposal of
the chemical fill and contaminated soil at the offsite landfill, the
contaminated material will be stabilized/fixated to the best
practicable level if the contaminated material were to fail the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure test.''
    The major components of the contingency remedy, as described by the
ESD, are:
     Excavation of chemical fill and waste materials exceeding
the following levels, or performance standards: Arsenic at 50 parts per
million, or ppm and cadmium at 20 ppm;
     Horizontal excavation to extend a minimum of two feet
beyond the limit of the chemical fill, subject to modification based
upon results of soil sampling conducted in February 1992;

     Confirmation sampling conducted at 14-foot intervals along
the perimeter of the excavation;
     Verification testing to assure that the performance
standard is met;
     Excavation backfilled with clean fill placed in 12-inch
lifts, compacted to a minimum of 90% standard Proctor density, and the
upper six inches to be backfilled with clean topsoil over which a
vegetated cover will be placed; and
     Excavation and removal of an underground gasoline tank
pursuant to Underground Storage Tank regulations.
    Requirements for establishing institutional controls, as described
in the OU1 ROD remained. The ESD identifies contaminants of potential
concern for the chemical fill, surface soil, and subsurface soil.

Response Actions

    The OU1 remedial design was approved by the EPA in March 1992, and
remedial action, or RA, fieldwork activities were completed on May 15,
1992, when demobilization from the Site occurred. The remedial design
and construction of the RA were conducted in accordance with the
statement of work provided by the Consent Decree. Implementation of the
RA is reported by the Conestoga-Rovers & Associates-authored Remedial
Action Report dated October 1993.
    Excavation is reported to have extended vertically from the ground
surface to the top of bedrock. Excavation depths ranged from
approximately 14 feet below ground surface, or bgs, at the excavation's
northern extent to about six feet bgs at its southern extent.
    A significant portion of the excavation is depicted as being
approximately six to eight feet bgs. Field determinations of the extent
of chemical fill are reported to have been made based upon its
distinctive visual characteristics. Stockpiled topsoil was later
characterized as contaminated soil and managed as such, due to having
produced a yellowish leachate after precipitation events, which yielded
a result of 142 ppm arsenic. The estimated total volume of excavated
chemical fill and contaminated soil, based upon excavation cross-
section surveys, is 2,220 cubic yards.
    Confirmation and verification sampling were conducted at
approximate 14-foot intervals along the perimeter of the excavation, as
specified in the RA Work Plan, except that discrete samples were used
for confirmation analysis as opposed to composite samples. Three
discrete samples were collected along the sidewall of the excavation
from depths of one-third and two-thirds of the sidewall's height, and
at the excavation's base. Each discrete sample was split, and if the
analysis confirmed that the performance standard was met, the remains
of the split sample were prepared and sent to a different lab for
confirmation analysis. Additional excavation was conducted when
verification samples did not meet the performance standard.
    The EPA Preliminary Close Out Report, documenting construction
completion for the Site, was signed on March 30, 2001. The PCOR states
that all physical construction associated with the remedy has been
completed in accordance with the RODs dated September 28, 2000, and
September 26, 1991; the ESD dated March 20, 1992; and the Consent
Decree dated May 26, 1992.

Operation and Maintenance

    Operation and maintenance of the implemented remedy is occurring as
intended. Inspection of the monitoring well network, and the Site in
general, is conducted on an annual basis. The inspections address
monitoring well access, external/internal conditions of the ground
cover at the former chemical fill area, and flood damage, if any.
Maintenance recommendations are also identified, as needed. The Site
completed the criteria for the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use
Government Performance and Results Act Measure and EPA Region 7 signed
the Superfund Property Reuse Evaluation Checklist for Reporting on July
7, 2006.
    The ROD requires implementation of institutional controls in the
form of deed restrictions to be placed upon the landfill property. A
restrictive covenant was recorded on February 21, 2001, with the Floyd
County Recorder of Deeds that satisfies the institutional control
provision of the ROD and Consent Decree. Currently, the following
individual institutional controls exist at the Site:
     An existing groundwater restrictive covenant in accordance
with the 1992 Consent Decree;
     Regulatory restrictions against residential construction
because the Site is within the 100-year flood plain of the Cedar River;
     Restrictions on groundwater use because it is within the
Charles City limits. City ordinance (City of Charles City Restriction
on Groundwater Use, Article 90.03) precludes the use of groundwater for
consumption, stating ``all residences and business establishments
within the city limits using water for human habitation or occupancy
shall connect to the public water system.'' The ordinance also
stipulates that ``No new wells shall be drilled and no repairs
requiring permits shall be made to a well within an area that is
contaminated or that may become contaminated due to contamination in
the vicinity of the well site;''
     Regulatory restrictions against changing site use because
the Site is included in the registry of hazardous waste or hazardous
substance disposal sites under the Iowa Environmental Act. Any use
change would require approval from the State of Iowa.
    The existing Site-specific institutional controls in combination
provide ample limitations of land and groundwater use at the Site. The
EPA will continue to review the need for an environmental covenant
during the Five-Year Review process.

Five-Year Review

    Statutory five-year reviews are required at the Shaw Avenue Dump
Superfund Site since hazardous substances remain at the Site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Five-
year reviews were completed for the Site in 2005, 2010, and 2015. The
2015 Five-Year Review, or FYR, identified issues and recommendations
including the change in toxicity values for polyaromatic hydrocarbons,
benzene, xylene, toluene, and 2-nitroaniline and deferred
protectiveness until this information could be obtained. The 2015 FYR
also identified the potential change in exposure assumptions in the
Cedar River and an off-site recreational pond. Required sampling and
analysis was completed by the responsible parties to address issues and
recommendations from the 2015 FYR, and to support the required FYR
addendum.
    The 2015 FYR was amended by the EPA under a FYR Addendum in 2017
and found that the remedies at OU1 and OU2 were protective of human
health and the environment. The sitewide protectiveness statement is
that the sitewide remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. The next Five-Year Review report will be completed by
August 21, 2020.

Community Involvement

    Throughout the process from development of the remedy to completion
of the remedial activities, all phases of the Site remediation have
been an open process with input from Federal and state regulators,
Charles City, and members of the public. Over the life of the project,
there have been public comment periods and public meetings to ensure
that the local residents were able to contribute to the process and
express their opinions.

    Public involvement has been included throughout the remediation
process at this Site and has been memorialized in operation documents
including the Consent Decree, proposed plans, and EPA Five-Year
Reviews. Public comments are also solicited during this partial
deletion with a notice in the local newspaper, the Charles City Press.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA Region 7 finds that
the OU1--Chemical Fill and Contaminated Soil of the Shaw Avenue Dump
Superfund Site (the subject of this deletion) meets the substantive
criteria for deletion from the NPL. The EPA has consulted with and has
the concurrence of the State of Iowa. All responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required. All
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA was implemented, and no
further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.
    The implemented remedy at the OU1--Chemical Fill and Contaminated
Soil has achieved the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all
pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and
associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and
guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human
health and the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: May 28, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2019-11542 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53892-53893]
[DOCID:fr17se08-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1788-DR]

Maine; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Maine (FEMA-1788-DR), dated September 9,
2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 9, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 9, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Maine resulting from severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes
during the period of July 18 to August 16, 2008, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act). Therefore, I declare that
such a major disaster exists in the State of Maine.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, except for any particular projects that are eligible
for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public
Assistance Pilot Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If
Other Needs Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is
later requested and warranted, Federal funding under that program
also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Philip E. Parr, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Maine have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Androscoggin, Cumberland, and York Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Maine are eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs, 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21774 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P