Friday,

December 27, 2002 Part VI Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 50 Stay of Authority Under 40 CFR 50.9( b) Related to Applicability of 1 Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed Rule VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 05: 09 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79460 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules 1 Part D of title I of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) contains a number of subparts concerning implementation of the NAAQS. Subpart 1 applies for purposes of implementing all new or revised NAAQS. Subparts 2   5, each apply to one or more specific NAAQS. At the time EPA promulgated the 8 hour ozone NAAQS, EPA indicated that it believed subpart 1 was the only subpart that would apply for purposes of implementing the revised 8 hour NAAQS and stated that subpart 2, which specifically addresses ozone, applied only for purposes of implementing the 1 hour ozone standard. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 50 [ FRL   7430   2]

Stay of Authority Under 40 CFR 50.9( b) Related to Applicability of 1 Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking ( NPRM).

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to stay its authority under the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) to determine that an area has attained the 1 hour standard (`` Proposed Stay'') and that the 1 hour standard no longer applies. The EPA proposes that the stay shall be effective until such time as EPA takes final action in a subsequent rulemaking addressing whether the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) should be modified in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U. S. 457 ( 2001), remanding EPA's strategy for the implementation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS to EPA for further consideration. In the subsequent rulemaking reconsidering the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b), EPA will consider and address any comments concerning ( a) which, if any, implementation activities for an 8 hour ozone standard, including designations and classifications, would need to occur before EPA would determine that the 1 hour ozone standard no longer applies to an area, and ( b) the effect of revising the ozone NAAQS on the existing 1 hour ozone designations. DATES: To be considered, comments must be received on or before January 27, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted ( in duplicate, if possible) to the EPA Docket Center ( 6102T), Attention: Docket Number OAR   2002   0067, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West ( Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room: B108, Washington, DC 20460, telephone ( 202) 566   1742, fax ( 202) 566   1741, between 8: 30 a. m. and 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. To mail comments through Federal Express, UPS or other courier services, the mailing address is: EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 20004. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following the instructions under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document. No confidential business information should be submitted through e mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this NPRM should be addressed to Annie Nikbakht, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, MD   C539   02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone ( 919) 541   5246.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Availability   The official record for this proposed rule, as well as the public version, has been established under Docket Number OAR   2002   0067. Submit comments by e mail to address: www. epa. gov/ rpas.

Table of Contents I. Background II. Summary of Today's Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. The Revised 8 Hour Ozone NAAQS On July 18, 1997, the EPA promulgated a revised 8 hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) for ozone. The rule was challenged by a number of industry groups and States in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ( D. C. Circuit). The Court granted many aspects of those challenges and remanded the 8 hour ozone NAAQS to EPA. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027 ( D. C. Cir. 1999) (`` ATA''). With respect to EPA's authority to implement the revised 8 hour ozone standard, the Court held that the statute was clear on its face that the provisions of `` subpart 2'' applied and then held that under the terms of the statute, the 8 hour standard `` cannot be enforced.'' 1 Id. at 1048   1050, 1057. The Court also remanded the standard to EPA on the ground that, under EPA's interpretation of its authority to promulgate the NAAQS, the CAA provided an unconstitutional delegation of authority to EPA. Id. at 1034   1040. Finally, the Court held that EPA had failed to consider whether ground level ozone had some beneficial effects, in particular, whether groundlevel ozone acted as a shield from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. Id. at 1051   1053. The D. C. Circuit largely denied EPA's request for rehearing, but did modify its decision to say that the 8 hour NAAQS could be enforced, but only in conformity with certain ozone specific provisions ( subpart 2) enacted in 1990. ATA II, 195 F. 3d 4 ( D. C. Cir. 1999). The EPA requested review by the Supreme Court of two aspects of the D. C. Circuit's decision   the delegation and implementation issues. The Court agreed to consider the case and on February 27, 2000, rejected the D. C. Circuit's holding that EPA's interpretation of the CAA resulted in an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 472   476 ( 2001) ( Whitman). While disagreeing with the Court of Appeals that the CAA was clear on its face that subpart 2 applied for purposes of implementing the revised ozone standard, the Court found unreasonable EPA's assertion that subpart 2 was inapplicable for implementation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. The Court remanded the implementation strategy to EPA for further consideration. Id. at 481   486.

B. EPA's Revocation Rules Simultaneous with its promulgation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS on July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a final rule governing the continued applicability of the existing 1 hour ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.9( b). The relevant language in 40 CFR 50.9( b) provides: `` The 1 hour standards set forth in this section will no longer apply to an area once EPA determines that the area has air quality meeting the 1 hour standard. Area designations are codified in 40 CFR part 81.'' In part, EPA based this approach on its interpretation that the provisions of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA applied as a matter of law for purposes of implementing the 1 hour ozone NAAQS, but that they would not apply for purposes of implementing the revised ozone standard. Thus, EPA believed it made sense to delay revocation of the 1 hour standard until such time as the provisions of subpart 2 would no longer apply and, at that time, revoke the 1 hour standard. Thus, once an area attained the 1 hour standard and EPA determined the 1 hour standard no longer applied to that area, the provisions of subpart 2 would also no longer apply. On June 5, 1998, EPA issued a final rule determining that over 2,000 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79461 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2 In addition to the two Revocation Rules that were challenged, EPA issued a third Revocation Rule on July 22, 1998 that was not challenged, ( 63 FR 39432). counties had attained the 1 hour ozone standard and that, therefore, the 1 hour standard and the associated designation for that standard no longer applied to those areas. See `` Identification of Ozone Areas Attaining the 1 Hour Standard to Which the 1 Hour Standard is No Longer Applicable,'' ( 63 FR 31014, June 5, 1998) (`` Revocation Rule''). Subsequently, on August 3, 1998, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council ( collectively `` Environmental Defense'') filed a petition for review challenging that rule. Environmental Defense v. EPA ( No. 98   1363, D. C. Cir.). On June 9, 1999, EPA issued a final rule determining that the 1 hour ozone standard no longer applied in an additional ten areas. Appalachian Mountain Club filed a petition for review challenging that action August 9, 1999. Appalachian Mountain Club v. EPA, No. 99   1880 ( 1st Cir.). Because of the doubt cast on the 8 hour standard and EPA's authority to enforce it by the D. C. Circuit in the ATA case, on July 20, 2000, EPA issued a final rule rescinding the Revocation Rules, ( 65 FR 45182, July 20, 2000) ( Rescission Rule). 2 Thus, EPA reinstated the 1 hour ozone NAAQS for all of the counties for which EPA previously determined that the 1 hour ozone NAAQS no longer applied. As part of the Rescission Rule, EPA modified the second sentence in 40 CFR 50.9( b) to provide: `` In addition, after the 8 hour standard has become fully enforceable under part D of title I of the CAA and subject to no further legal challenge, the 1 hour standards set forth in this section will no longer apply to an area once EPA determines that the area has air quality meeting the 1 hour standard. Area designations and classifications with respect to the 1 hour standards are codified in 40 CFR part 81.''

C. Revocation Rule Litigation The parties in both the Environmental Defense and the Appalachian Mountain Club cases determined to stay the litigation based on EPA's Rescission Rule and the continued litigation regarding the 8 hour ozone NAAQS and EPA's authority to implement that standard. Following the Supreme Court's decision in the Whitman case, the parties negotiated a Settlement Agreement that provided for EPA to issue this proposal to stay its authority under 40 CFR 50.9( b) while EPA considers whether to modify the language in 40 CFR 50.9( b) regarding the process and basis for revoking the 1 hour ozone standard. See 67 FR 48896 ( July 26, 2002). Environmental Defense and Appalachian Mountain Club have agreed to dismiss their cases if EPA issues a final rule staying the revocation provision in 40 CFR 50.9( b) until such time as EPA considers in a subsequent rulemaking whether that provision should be modified and, in the final stay, commits to consider and address in the subsequent rulemaking any comments concerning ( a) which, if any, implementation activities for a revised ozone standard ( including but not limited to designation and classification of areas) would need to occur before EPA would determine that the 1 hour ozone standard no longer applied to an area, and ( b) the effect of revising the ozone NAAQS on existing designations for the pollutant ozone.

II. Summary of Today's Action The EPA is proposing to stay its authority under the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) to determine that an area has attained the 1 hour standard and that the 1 hour standard no longer applies. The EPA proposes that the stay shall be effective until such time as EPA takes final agency action in a subsequent rulemaking addressing whether the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) should be modified in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Whitman regarding implementation of the 8 hour NAAQS. In developing a revised 8 hour implementation strategy consistent with the Supreme Court's decision, EPA will consider and address any comments concerning ( a) which, if any, implementation activities for an 8 hour ozone standard, including designations and classifications, would need to occur before EPA would determine that the 1 hour ozone standard no longer applied to an area, and ( b) the effect of revising the ozone NAAQS on existing designations for the pollutant ozone. The EPA plans to consider the timeframe and basis for revoking the 1 hour standard in the implementation rulemaking that it plans to issue in response to the Supreme Court's remand. The EPA believes that it is appropriate to reconsider this issue because, at the time EPA promulgated § 50.9( b), EPA anticipated that subpart 2 would not apply for purposes of implementing the revised ozone standard. It makes sense, in light of the many issues that are now being considered regarding implementation of the 8 hour standard, including the applicability of subpart 2 for purposes of implementing that standard, for EPA to consider simultaneously the most effective means to transition from implementation of the 1 hour standard to implementation of the revised 8 hour ozone NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the OMB and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' and was not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements which require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to noticeand comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute 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 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business as defined in the Small VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79462 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules Business Administration's ( SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 12.201; ( 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 forprofit 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 economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action proposes to stay EPA's authority under the second sentence of 40 CFR 50.9( b) to determine that an area has attained the 1 hour standard and that the 1 hour standard no longer applies. It does not establish requirements applicable to small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable laws. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. This proposed action also does not impose any additional enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or impose any significant or unique impact on small governments as described in UMRA. Because today's action does not create any additional mandates, no further UMRA analysis is needed.

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'' are 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.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. 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. This action stays the language of 40 CFR 50.9( b) regarding EPA's authority to take action and imposes no additional burdens on States or local entities; it does not change the existing relationship between the national government and the States or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various branches of government. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of this Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on such communities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5   501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because this action is not `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866 and there are no environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this rule.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4 79463 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 249 / Friday, December 27, 2002 / Proposed Rules consider and use `` voluntary consensus standards'' ( VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this proposed action. Today's proposed action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations Under Executive Order 12898, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low income populations. Today's proposed action to stay EPA's authority under 40 CFR 50.9( b) related to applicability of the 1 hour ozone standard does not have a disproportionate adverse effect on minorities and low income populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: December 19, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 50 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 50   AMENDED 1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7410, et seq.

2. Section 50.9 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 50.9 National 1 hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone.

* * * * * ( c) EPA's authority under paragraph ( b) of this section to determine that an area has attained the 1 hour standard and that the 1 hour standard no longer applies is stayed until such time as EPA issues a final rule revising or reinstating such authority.

[ FR Doc. 02   32577 Filed 12   26   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 04: 40 Dec 27, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27DEP4. SGM 27DEP4


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19793]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07338]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement

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

ACTION: Notice to Rescind a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement was published in the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 248,
Thursday, December 26, 2013, to advise the public that the FAA would
prepare an EIS analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Shiloh Launch Complex. Space Florida had indicated an intent
to submit an application to the FAA to request approval to operate a
commercial space launch site, called the ``Shiloh Launch Complex'' in
Brevard and Volusia Counties, Florida, triggering the requirement to
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The FAA is issuing
this notice to advise the public that Space Florida is conducting
further analysis of the proposed site and the FAA will no longer
prepare an EIS for this proposed project, at this time. If Space
Florida decides to reinitiate the project, the FAA will release a new
Notice of Intent for this project.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey M. Zee, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-267-9305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA in conjunction with the cooperating
agencies, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
Service will no longer be preparing an EIS for the issuance of a launch
site operator license to Space Florida for the operation of the Shiloh
Launch Site at this time.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-07338 Filed 4-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53723]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-83]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; L3 Unmanned
Systems, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0752
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.0752gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 18, 2018.
Lirio Liu,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0752.
    Petitioner: L3 Unmanned Systems, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  107.1; 107.3.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting relief
to operate the Latitude HQ-60 and HQ-90 hybrid quadcopter unmanned
aircraft systems, both above 55 pounds, under 14 CFR part 107, for the
purpose of training and gathering aerial data for development and
commercial interests. The petitioner also requests relief from the
applicablility of operations and the definition of ``small unmanned
aircraft'' in part 107.

[FR Doc. 2018-23262 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 68577-68578]
[DOCID:fr05de07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

November 29, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1174-002; OA07-74-002.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: MATL, LLP submits revised tariff sheets to its open
access transmission tariff, Open Access

Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 11/26/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071128-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1377-001.
    Applicants: Central Vermont Public Service Corp.
    Description: Central Vermont Public Service Corporation Compliance
Refund Report.
    Filed Date: 11/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 12, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-235-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Co. submits its Notice
of Cancellation of FERC Electric Rate Schedule 535 and related
supplements.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-236-000.
    Applicants: Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc.
    Description: Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc
submits a Coordination Agreement with New Brunswick System Operator.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-0046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-237-000.
    Applicants: Forward Energy LLC.
    Description: Forward Energy, LLC submits their FERC Electric Tariff
1.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-238-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits the signature page to
the PJM Consolidated Transmission Owners Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-0048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-239-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Co. submits First Revised Sheet
15 et al. to FERC Rate Schedule 107.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-0049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-240-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Co. submits First Revised Sheet
15 et al. to FERC Rate Schedule 106.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-241-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Water Power Company.
    Description: Consolidated Water Power Co. submits an executed
``Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service'' with the City
of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin.
    Filed Date: 11/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071121-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 11, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-253-000.
    Applicants: LSF Limited.
    Description: LSF Limited submits a Notice of Cancellation of Market
Base Rate Authority.
    Filed Date: 11/26/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071128-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-254-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Notice of Termination of
a Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement with Avista
Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 11/27/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071128-0046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 18, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-23553 Filed 12-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 57710]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20361]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4652-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

New Mexico; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of New Mexico (FEMA-4652-DR), dated May 4, 2022, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 24, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 24, 2022, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Deanne
Criswell, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as
follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of New Mexico resulting from wildfires, straight-line winds,
flooding, mudflows, and debris flows during the period of April 5 to
July 23, 2022, is of sufficient severity and magnitude that special
cost sharing arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds
provided under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declarations of May 4, 2022, June 9, 2022,
and June 27, 2022, to authorize Federal funds for debris removal and
emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program at 100 percent of the total
eligible costs for an additional 90-day period from August 3, 2022
through November 1, 2022 for Mora and San Miguel Counties.

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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-20361 Filed 9-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Date: 4/ 28/ 03 Subject: Butane Blending Technical Analysis From: Stuart Romanow To: Docket EPA is considering a modification to its regulations which would allow blending of butane into reformulated gasoline ( RFG) outside of the high ozone season, with relaxed sampling and testing requirements. This modification would make butane blending into finished RFG at terminals a more feasible option. This memorandum examines the potential effects of blending butane into RFG. The analysis contained in this memorandum supports the following conclusions:

When butane is blended into RFG, the resultant blend is likely to conform to the toxics and NOx performance standards applicable to non VOC controlled RFG. Performance, as measured by the applicable compliance model, the winter complex model, may actually improve after butane blending.

Blending butane into RFG is likely to substantially increase the Reid Vapor Pressure ( RVP) of the gasoline, particularly when the " before blending" gasoline has an RVP characteristic of VOC controlled gasoline.

The winter complex model does not consider the effects of RVP on emissions performance. Increases in RVP, in addition to causing increases in non exhaust VOC and non exhaust toxics emissions, may also cause increases in exhaust emissions, including NOx. Therefore, the winter model may not fully characterize the adverse emissions impacts of butane blending.

Although the potential for adverse environmental impacts resulting from such emissions increases is small, the potential can be further reduced if butane is not blended into RFG at terminals during the shoulder seasons.

Analysis RFG performance is evaluated by computing emission reductions relative to a baseline gasoline, using a specified compliance model. The Phase II complex model, the applicable compliance model for Phase II RFG is described in 40 CFR 80.45. There are two versions of this model; a summer model used to determine the compliance of VOC controlled gasoline required during the summer high ozone season, and a winter model used for non VOC controlled gasoline. Certain fuel properties are input parameters for the complex model. The parameter values for the summer and winter baseline gasolines are also specified in the regulation. Non VOC controlled Phase II RFG per gallon performance standards for toxics and NOx respectively, are 20% and 0.0% reductions. The averaged standards for toxics and NOx are 21.5% and 1.5%. In order to demonstrate that RFG will continue to comply with these standards after butane blending, sets of properties representative of RFG before blending were selected, property changes from butane blending were estimated, and the winter complex model was used to confirm that the resultant blends still comply with these standards. Both " winter gasoline" and " summer gasoline" before blending properties were selected. Although the relaxed sampling and testing will apply to blending of butane into RFG only outside of the VOC season, these summer properties may be representative of gasoline at terminals at the close of the VOC season.

Calendar year 2000 RFG Survey data were used to determine representative sets of RFG properties. Property averages for Sussex County Delaware were selected as parameters for this analysis. Although Sussex County's average RFG performance was substantially better than performance standards, the area ranked at or near the bottom of areas surveyed in year 2000 for both winter and summer toxics and NOx performance. Parameter values are shown in table 1, below:

Table 1 Sussex County, DE Average Property Values Year 2000 RFG Surveys Summer 2000 Winter 2000 Total oxygen ( wt%) 2.01 2.00 MTBE ( wt% oxygen) 1.65 1.47 ETBE ( wt% oxygen) Ethanol ( wt% oxygen) TAME ( wt% oxygen) 0.33 0.50 SULFUR ( ppm) 134 225 RVP ( psi) 6.43 E200 (%) 45.5 53.5 E300 (%) 81.6 82.8 AROMATICS ( vol%) 24.87 20.33 OLEFINS ( vol%) 11.04 12.03 BENZENE ( vol%) 0.730 0.652 Although TAME contributed a substantial portion of total oxygen and small quantities of oxygenates other than MTBE and TAME were present, it was assumed for this analysis that all oxygen was from MTBE ( i. e. total oxygen weight was assigned to MTBE for complex model calculatios.) This has some effect on complex model toxics, but none on NOx. The winter RFG surveys do not measure RVP, since, for compliance determinations, RVP is set to a value of 8.7 psi in the winter complex model. Data from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ( AAM ) winter surveys for year 2000 were used to select an RVP value for the winter gasoline. Since Philadelphia, PA is an RFG area geographically close to Sussex County, DE, 13.3 psi, the average RVP value for regular grade gasoline from the AAM Philadelphia survey, was selected. 1 Sussex County had the lowest average RVP of areas surveyed, so 8 v% butane blending is about the maximum amount of butane that could be blended to meet the 11.5 psi class C limit. See http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ regs/ fuels/ rfg/ properf/ rfgperf. htm for a survey data summary.

2 The potential effect of butane blending on the emissions performance of gasoline is largely due to the impurities that may be present in the butane. For example, if butane with high sulfur and olefin content were blended with gasoline with lower sulfur and olefin content, the resultant blend could have poorer NOx emission performance than the before blending gasoline. Consequently, the non commercial olefin maximum was used in this analysis, to represent a " worst case" condition. The olefin maximum does not change after January 1, 2004, however the sulfur maximum decreases from 140 ppm to 30 ppm. Since this rule is unlikely to become final in time to have any substantial impact prior to 2004, the 30 ppm value was used. It was assumed that RVP would blend linearly on mole fraction basis when butane was blended with gasoline. A relative density of 0.73 and a molecular weight of 105 were assumed for the gasoline before blending. Based on a table of physical constants of paraffins 51.7 psi was used as the butane RVP, since this was the listed vapor pressure at 100 F for n butane. With these assumptions, if butane is blended at 3 volume percent with 13.3 psi gasoline, the resultant blend RVP is around 14.9 psi. According to ASTM Standard D 4814, the highest winter gasoline vapor pressure/ distillation class for Delaware is E, with a maximum RVP of 15.0 psi. Therefore, blending butane at 3 volume percent into this winter gasoline should be a representative blending case. The highest ASTM volatility class standard for Delaware during the latter part of September is C, with a maximum RVP of 11.5 psi. With the above blending assumptions, if butane is blended at 8 volume percent with 6.43 psi RVP gasoline, the resultant blend RVP is around 11.5 psi, consequently blending butane at 8 v% into this summer gasoline should also be a representative blending case. 1 Other properties of the blend were calculated assuming linear volumetric blending for aromatics, olefins, benzene, E200 and E300, and gravimetric blending for sulfur and oxygen. It was also assumed that the butane used for blending had some olefin, aromatic and sulfur content. The values for these parameters are the maximums for noncommercial grade butane, applicable after January 1, 2004.2 Tables 2 and 3 show the before and after blending property values for these two cases. Table 2 Properties Before and After Butane Blending at 3 v%

Winter gas Gasoline Butane After blending 3v%

MTBE ( wt% oxygen) 2.00 0 1.95 ETBE ( wt% oxygen) 0 Ethanol ( wt% oxygen) 0 TAME ( wt% oxygen) 0 SULFUR ( ppm) 225 30 220 RVP ( psi) 13.3 51.7 14.9 E200 (%) 53.5 100 54.9 E300 (%) 82.8 100 83.3 AROMATICS ( vol%) 20.33 2 19.78 OLEFINS ( vol%) 12.03 10 11.97 BENZENE ( vol%) 0.652 0.03 0.633 relative density 0.73 0.584 molecular weight 105 58 Table 3 Properties Before and After Butane Blending at 8 v%

Summer gas Gasoline Butane after blending 8 v%

MTBE ( wt% oxygen) 2.01 0 1.88 ETBE ( wt% oxygen) 0 Ethanol ( wt% oxygen) 0 TAME ( wt% oxygen) 0 SULFUR ( ppm) 134 30 127 RVP ( psi) 6.43 51.7 11.5 E200 (%) 45.5 100 49.9 E300 (%) 81.6 100 83.1 AROMATICS ( vol%) 24.87 2 23.04 OLEFINS ( vol%) 11.04 10 10.96 BENZENE ( vol%) 0.730 0.03 0.674 relative density 0.73 0.584 molecular weight 105 58 The winter complex model, used for compliance calculations outside of the high ozone 3 The RVP levels of the fuels in the database used to develop the complex model ranged from 6.5 to 10 psi, lower than the typical range for winter fuels. Since data on the exhaust emission effects of fuels with winter RVP levels under winter conditions were very limited, EPA could not model the effects of winter RVP levels on exhaust emissions. Consequently, although RVP is likely to have some effect on wintertime exhaust emissions, EPA opted to assume no effect in the winter complex model.

4 The winter model also assumes that non exhaust VOC emissions differences, which would be affected by RVP differences as well as ambient temperatures, are zero.

5 As noted, Sussex County Delaware RFG ranked near the bottom in average NOx and toxics emissions performance in year 2000. Both the sulfur and olefin content of the RFG in this analysis exceeded the levels in the butane, so blending reduced these parameters, with a beneficial effect on NOx. If this impure butane were blended into RFG with lower sulfur and/ or olefin content than the butane, these parameter values in the blend could be higher than the beforeblending gasoline values. This may result in an increase, rather than a decrease in NOx after blending. However, gasoline with low sulfur and olefin content would be expected to have superior NOx performance. Thus, blending related increases in NOx emissions, as measured by the winter complex model, would be expected only where there is extreme overcompliance in the before blending RFG.

6 Although this analysis addressed butane blending into RFG, the same general conclusion holds for blending into conventional gasoline; i. e. butane blending is likely to reduce winter season, is used with a default RVP value of 8.7 psi for both the winter baseline fuel and the fuel being compared to the baseline. Use of the same RVP for both fuels, rather than the actual RVP, zeros out the effects of RVP change on exhaust emissions. 3 The winter model ignores nonexhaust benzene emissions, which are a component of total toxics in the summer model. 4 Using the winter complex model to evaluate the performance of the before and after blending formulations shows that these after blending formulations not only still comply with the toxics and NOx performance standards, but that the performance for both toxics and NOx improves. 5 This is shown in table 4, below. ( Reductions from baseline fuel emissions are shown as negative numbers, so larger negative numbers denote better performance.)

Table 4 Winter Complex Model Performance ( Both cases)

Winter Complex Model Performance (% change from baseline) Using 8.7 psi RVP Before blending Blending @ 3v% Blending @ 8 v% winter gas Toxics ( exhaust)  24.81  25.58 not calculated NOx  4.86  5.15 not calculated summer gas Toxics ( exhaust)  22.15 not calculated  24.60 NOx  8.13 not calculated  8.60 This shows that butane blending at the terminal is unlikely to result in non VOC controlled RFG which fails to comply with toxics or NOx performance standards. 6 However, the above complex model exhaust toxics and NOx emissions. analysis ignores any effect that the increase in RVP may have on emissions Therefore, one cannot unequivocally conclude that toxics and NOx emissions will not increase as a result of butane blending into RFG. To further investigate if any adverse emission effect ( even one that would not affect compliance) is likely as a result of butane blending, the summer complex model, which considers RVP effects, was used to evaluate the " summer gas" case. Results are shown in table 5, below:

Table 5 Summer Complex Model Performance ( 8v% case)

Summer Complex Model Performance (% change from Baseline) Before blending Blending @ 8v% Summer gas exhaust VOC  16.37  2.17 non exhaust VOC  49.86 139.46 total VOC  28.15 47.65 exhaust toxics  26.95  28.03 total toxics  29.87  28.53 NOx  7.62  6.66 The summer complex model predicts that exhaust toxics performance will improve after blending, but that NOx performance will get worse. The model predicts that non exhaust VOCs, which are a function of RVP, will increase substantially, and that total toxics will increase slightly ( Non exhaust benzene emissions increase because of the RVP increase.) Exhaust VOC emissions increase as well.

Alternative NOx models, which EPA developed to evaluate California's RFG oxygenate waiver request, confirm that NOx emissions could increase after butane blending. These results are shown in table 6, below:

Table 6 Alternative NOx Model Emission Estimates Before and after Blending ( 8v% case)

Alternative NOx Model Results Before and After Blending Model 2 Model 3 EPA 3 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 average Summer gas before blending ( gm/ mile) 0.75892 0.75201 0.75364 0.75828 0.75973 0.75674 After blending 8v% butane ( gm/. mile) 0.79797 0.80409 0.79496 0.79049 0.79468 0.78184 % change before to after 5.15% 6.93% 5.48% 4.25% 4.60% 3.32% 4.95%

However, in general, these models also indicate that the NOx emissions of the after blending formulations are lower than the emissions of the 1990 winter baseline fuel as measured by the same models. Consequently, these models indicate that the NOx performance after blending, even considering the effect of RVP increase, is likely to be as good as or better than 1990 winter 7 The actual RVP for winter baseline gasoline ( 11.5 psi) was used in these calculations. These alternative models use T50 and T90 distillation parameters. T50 and T90 values were 200F and 333F for the winter baseline, 189.8F and 328.0F for the 3% blend, and 200.1F and 329.1F for the 8% blend. baseline gasoline, consistent with the intent of the RFG regulations 7:

Table 7 Alternative Model Comparisons to Winter Baseline Emissions ( both cases)

Alternative NOx Model Comparison of After Blending and 90 Baseline Model 2 Model 3 EPA 3 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 average 90 winter bl gasoline 0.85733 0.85246 0.85396 0.84416 0.84878 0.85196 Blending at 3% into winter gas 0.84920 0.87024 0.85078 0.83688 0.84370 0.82471 % change from winter baseline  0.95% 2.09%  0.37%  0.86%  0.60%  3.20%  0.65%

Blending at 8% into summer gas 0.79797 0.80409 0.79496 0.79049 0.79468 0.78184 % change from winter baseline  6.92%  5.67%  6.91%  6.36%  6.37%  8.23%  6.74%

These results should be viewed with some caution. It is uncertain that either the complex model or any of these alternative NOx models accurately predicts the effect of RVP's in this range on NOx emissions. The upper limit of the acceptable RVP range for the complex model is 10.0 psi for RFG and 11.0 for conventional gasoline. Observations with RVP> 10 were excluded from the data used to develop these alternative NOx models.

Butane blending downstream of oxygenate blending will dilute the oxygen content. Thus, there could be an increased probability of oxygen survey series failures. There is also the possibility that some RFG would fall below the per gallon minimum for oxygen. Neither situation is likely to have any significant adverse environmental effect.

In summary, butane blending will have no compliance consequences for non VOC  controlled RFG, other than its effect on oxygen content. However, blending butane into gasoline, could degrade its emissions performance in ways not considered in the winter complex model. Butane blending could significantly increase the RVP of gasoline at terminals at the close of the ozone season. Consequently, the exhaust and non exhaust VOC emissions performance of the after blending gasoline would be substantially worse than before blending. NOx emissions performance is likely to be adversely affected, as well. Toxics emissions may also be adversely affected, because of non exhaust benzene increases not included in the winter model, but butane blending also benefits exhaust toxics emission performance ( e. g. through dilution of benzene and aromatics content) offsetting any " uncounted" non exhaust increase. 8 The Mobile Source Air Toxics rule will help maintain RFG's toxics overcompliance and the Tier 2 sulfur requirements should maintain or increase NOx overcompliance. Since butane blending will not contribute to noncompliance with performance standards outside of the VOC control season, and since there is already substantial overcompliance with both toxics and NOx performance standards, it is unlikely that any uncounted NOx or toxics increases would have a substantial adverse environmental effect during this time period. 8 VOC performance is controlled and a stricter standard applies to NOx during the VOC control season because these pollutants, in summertime atmospheric conditions, are involved in the photochemical reactions that form ozone. Additionally, for a given fuel composition, summertime ambient temperature profiles are likely to result in greater non exhaust benzene emissions than wintertime profiles.

However, summertime conditions can exist outside of the VOC control season. Consequently, the presence of VOC controlled RFG, which may be in the distribution system, could potentially provide additional benefit relative to non VOC controlled RFG. This benefit may be reduced if butane blending into this RFG occurs at terminals. Both the likelihood of VOC controlled RFG in the distribution system and the likelihood of any additional benefit from this RFG would be greatest in the shoulder seasons.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40299-40306]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0442; Project Identifier AD-2020-00260-E;
Amendment 39-21640; AD 2021-14-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, PW2040, and F117-PW-100 model
turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by a report of an uncontained
engine failure resulting from cracks in the knife edge of the high-
pressure turbine (HPT) 2nd-stage air seal assembly. This AD requires
fluorescent penetrant inspections (FPIs) and visual inspections of the
HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly and, depending on the results of the
inspections, replacement of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly with a
part eligible for installation. This AD also requires replacement of
the affected HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, depending on the engine
model, at either the next engine shop visit or the next piece-part
opportunity. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
website: https://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (781)
238-7759. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0442.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0442; 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, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all PW PW2037, PW2037M,
PW2040, and F117-PW-100 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on June 1, 2020 (85 FR 33043). The NPRM was
prompted by a report of an uncontained engine failure resulting from
cracks in the knife edge of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly. After
further analysis, it was determined that the knife-edge crack was due
to seal rubbing that elevated the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly
temperature and induced fatigue. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require initial and repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs), FPIs, and
visual inspections of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly and,
depending on the results of the inspections, replacement of the HPT
2nd-stage air seal assembly with a part eligible for installation. The
NPRM also proposed to require replacement of the affected HPT 2nd-stage
air seal assembly, depending on the engine model, at either the next
engine shop visit or the next piece-part opportunity. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from six commenters. The commenters were
the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA); Delta Air Lines,
Inc. (Delta); FedEx Express (FedEx); MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH
(MTU); The Boeing Company (Boeing); and United Airlines (UAL).
    The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the
FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Revise Proposed BSI Requirement

    Delta, MTU, and FedEx requested revisions to the BSI proposed in
the NPRM. The FAA details the comments to the BSI in the following
paragraphs but is not providing an individual response to each comment
given that the FAA removed the proposal for BSI from this AD.

Request To Increase the Compliance Time for Initial BSI To Allow
Sufficient Time To Complete Inspector Training

    Delta requested that the compliance time of 500 FCs after the
effective date of this AD for the initial BSI proposed by paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of the NPRM be extended to account for the difference in
predicted flight utilization versus actual utilization as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Delta cited concerns that the 500 FC compliance
time will not allow sufficient time for training inspectors to obtain
qualifications to perform the BSI proposed by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of
the NPRM. Delta noted that government restrictions and recommendations
on travel and class size for in-person on-site training plus the lack
of remote training opportunities represent obstacles to adequately
training inspectors.

Request To Update Repetitive BSI Language

    Delta requested that the FAA update paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the
NPRM from ``. . . perform the BSI required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of
this AD within every 500 FCs since performance of the last BSI'' to ``.
. . perform the BSI required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD within
every 500 FCs since performance of the last BSI that was done per
paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.'' Delta reasoned that the
phrase ``last BSI'' of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the NPRM could cause
confusion since the ``last BSI'' is the ``initial BSI.''

Request To Clarify ``Before Further Flight''

    Delta requested that the FAA update paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of the
NPRM to clarify the phrase ``before further flight.'' Delta asked
whether the action is to remove the engine before the flight of the
aircraft, or remove the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly and perform the
inspections proposed by paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM before flight of
the engine. Delta stated there could be confusion that the aircraft is
prohibited from further flight until the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly is removed from the engine.

Request To Include a Scenario When To Perform the BSI

    Delta and MTU requested confirmation that the FAA included all the
non-modulated turbine cooling air (TCA) system engines population into
the proposed BSI requirement. MTU requested that the FAA update
paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM to include engines that have deactivated/
mechanically disconnected the TCA system.

Request To Update the Costs of Compliance and Work Hours

    FedEx requested that the hours to perform the BSI of the HPT 2nd-
stage air seal assembly be changed to 4.8 hours. FedEx cited PW Service
Bulletin (SB) PW2000 72-773, dated March 11, 2020 (PW SB PW2000 72-
773), that indicates that the on-wing inspection takes 4.8 hours and
not 2 work hours as indicated in the NPRM.

Request To Update the Terminating Action

    FedEx requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h), Terminating
Action, of the NPRM from ``. . . terminating action for the repetitive
BSI requirements in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD'' to ``. . .
terminating action for the initial BSI requirement in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) and the repetitive BSI requirements in paragraph (g)(1)(ii)
of this AD.'' FedEx reasoned that an HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly
could be removed for a reason unrelated to this AD and inducted for an
engine shop visit before the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly is subject
to the initial BSI proposed by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the NPRM. As
written in the NPRM, FedEx suggested it could be interpreted that the
HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly would still need an initial inspection
within 2,500 FCs after this unrelated engine shop visit.

Request To Clarify Revision of NDIP-1217

    Delta requested clarification if this AD allows for any revision
level of Non-Destructive Inspection Procedure, Technique Sheet for
Detection of Cracking in the PW2000 HPT 2nd Stage Airseal by Borescope
Inspection Method (NDIP-1217). Delta cited paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the
NPRM that proposed to require PW SB PW2000 72-773, which references
NDIP-1217.

Request To Clarify Reporting

    Delta requested clarification if paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the NPRM
proposed to require reporting of the inspection results to PW Materials
& Processes Engineering/Non-Destructive Evaluation Engineer. Delta
noted that paragraph (g)(1)(i) of the NPRM references paragraph 6 of PW
SB PW2000 72-773, which references NDIP-1217, which specifies reporting
of the inspection results.

Request To Approve Tooling Equivalent

    Delta requested that their rotator be approved as a tooling
equivalent for performing the BSI proposed by paragraph (g)(1) of the
NPRM. Delta reasoned that they worked in conjunction with PW to approve
a tooling equivalent and requested confirmation that PW has the
authority to approve tooling equivalents and that an alternative method
of compliance request would not be required.
    Delta also requested approval to deviate from paragraph 6.1.2 of
NDIP-1217 to remove the starter rather than the crank pad to use their
rotator.

Request To Allow HPT Rotating by Hand for BSI

    Delta requested that the FAA allow the performance of the BSI of
the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly proposed by paragraph (g)(1) of the
NPRM to be rotated by hand rather than by a motor-driven unit per
paragraph 6 of NDIP-1217. Delta reasoned the motor-driven unit may not
be available at all stations and a second maintenance technician can
rotate the HPT rotor manually, which allows the inspector to use two
hands for the BSI.

Request To Confirm Affected Engine Serial Numbers

    Delta commented that ``EagleNet case (CAS-83493-C0M6W0)'' was
submitted to P&W to confirm RTC engines cannot be converted to CET/pre-
CET engines or vice versa. Delta requested that the FAA confirm that
the list of affected engine serial numbers in the proposed AD is an
adequate method for controlling risk of affected population.

Comment on Operational and Economic Costs

    FedEx commented that the proposed rule would impact approximately
half of its fleet of PW2000 model turbofan engines. The inspection
program itself will have a minor operational impact as it can be
incorporated into an existing hot section inspection program, but
unplanned engine changes will result in local operational impact. FedEx
noted that the cost of the on-wing inspection program [BSI] would be
minimal but the cost of engines that need to be removed immediately
will have a fairly significant impact. FedEx noted that these
operational and economic impacts are acceptable when weighed against
the impact of an in-service event.

FAA Response to Comments To Revise the BSI Inspection

    The FAA determined the need to remove the proposed BSI requirement
from this AD based on comments regarding accessibility of inspector
training. The FAA may consider additional rulemaking and will consider
these comments in the development of any additional requirements.

Request That Individual Part Serviceability Not Depend on the
Inspection Results of Other Parts

    Delta commented that individual part serviceability should not
depend on the inspection results of other parts. Delta also commented
that if inspections are not possible which would allow the mating HPT
1st-stage disk or the HPT 2nd-stage hub to be deemed serviceable,
independent from inspection status of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly, then the manufacturer should revise the engine manuals to
clarify that the mating HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage hub cannot
be made serviceable unless an inspection of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly indicates it is free of cracks. Delta stated that this would
remove the possibility that the mating HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-
stage hub would be made serviceable and then installed in an engine
before the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly is inspected.
    The FAA did not revise this AD in response to this comment. A
crack, as identified in the shaded regions of Figure 1 to paragraph
(g)(1)(iii) of this AD (Figure 1), which extends towards the knife-edge
region of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, impacts the
serviceability of the mating HPT 1st-stage disk and the HPT 2nd-stage
hub. A crack identified in the shaded region of Figure 1 of this AD of
the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly results in the requirement to
remove the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, mating HPT 1st-stage disk,
and HPT 2nd-stage hub.

Request To Remove Inspections for Parts Being Scrapped

    Delta requested that the FAA update paragraph (g)(2)(i) of the NPRM
(paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD) to remove the visual inspection,
knife-edge coating strip, and FPI of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly if the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, mating HPT 1st-stage
disk, and HPT 2nd-stage hub are being scrapped. Further, Delta
requested if the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly is planned to be
scrapped, then the mating HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub be
allowed to be made serviceable without FPI of the HPT 2nd-stage air
seal assembly.
    The FAA disagrees with the need to change the AD based on this
comment. If the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, HPT 1st-stage disk,
and HPT 2nd-stage hub are removed from service, then the inspections
required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD are not applicable. The
inspections are required only if the operator returns the parts to
service.
    FPI is the only way to ensure the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly
is free from cracks because an FPI will reveal cracks not detected by a
visual inspection. The serviceability of the both the HPT 1st-stage
disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub is directly dependent on the HPT 2nd-stage
air seal assembly. If an operator does not FPI the HPT 2nd-stage air
seal assembly, then neither the HPT 1st-stage disk nor HPT 2nd-stage
disk can be returned to service. The FAA did not change this AD.

Request To Reference Engine Manual for Inspection Instructions

    FedEx requested that the FAA update paragraph (g)(2)(i) of the NPRM
(paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD) to reference Chapter 72-52-60,
Inspection/Check-01, of the PW2000 Series Engine Manual for
instructions to perform the visual inspection, knife-edge coating
removal, and FPI of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly.
    The FAA determined it is not necessary to require use of specific
service information as the visual inspection and FPI required by
paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD are routine inspections that may vary
between operators. The FAA, however, revised paragraph (g)(1)(i) of
this AD to refer to Chapter 72-52-60, Repair-01, of the PW2000 Series
Engine Manual for guidance on striping the knife edge coating from the
HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly.

Request To Remove FPI

    Delta requested that paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the NPRM (paragraph
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD) remove the proposed requirement to perform an
FPI and require only visual inspections of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly. Delta reasoned that based on NDIP-1217, cracks are detectable
by visual inspection, thereby making FPI unnecessary. Delta concluded
that performing only the visual inspection enables the HPT 2nd-stage
air seal assembly to be inspected at initial disassembly while still in
the presence of the mating HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub,
which simplifies determining if parts need to be scrapped if a crack is
found. Otherwise, Delta stated that paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of the NPRM
creates a logistical challenge for performing inspections as the HPT
2nd-stage air seal assembly, mating HPT 1st-stage disk, and HPT 2nd-
stage hub could be routed to different locations with different lead
times.
    The FAA disagrees. While cracks may be detected by visual
inspection, an FPI will reveal cracks not detected by visual
inspection. Additionally, the FPI is required to confirm that the HPT
2nd-stage air seal assembly is free of cracks. The FAA did not change
this AD.

Request To Allow Repair of the HPT 2nd-Stage Air Seal Assembly

    Delta and MTU requested that paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the NPRM
(paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD) be updated to allow repair of the HPT
2nd-stage air seal assembly if a crack is found. The commenters
reasoned that Chapter 72-52-60, Inspection/Check-01 and Repair-02, of
the PW2000 Series Engine Manual provides information for repairing a
cracked HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly. The commenters concluded that
this AD should allow repair; otherwise, Chapter 72-52-60 of the PW2000
Series Engine Manual should be deleted or updated.
    The FAA disagrees that the crack repairs identified in the engine
manual should be incorporated in this AD. If a crack is found during
the inspections required by this AD for the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly, the part must be removed from service and cannot be repaired.
The FAA disagrees that Chapter 72-52-60 of the PW2000 Series Engine
Manual should be deleted or updated. This repair is specifically for
mechanical damage such as handling damage and foreign object damage in
the knife edge area. This repair is not applicable to cracks identified
by this AD. The damage addressed is unrelated and the repair does not
need to be

prohibited. The requirements contained in this AD take precedence over
any contrary provisions in the manufacturer's instructions for
continued airworthiness. The FAA did not update this AD.

Request To Clarify Removal From Service

    Delta requested that the FAA clarify paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of the
NPRM (paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD) that states the HPT 2nd-stage
air seal assembly must be removed from service if a crack is found.
Delta asked if the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly must be scrapped, or
if the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly can be repaired and returned to
service after re-identifying it with a new P/N. Delta added that the
engine manual provides a repair option of knife-edge cracks caused by
mechanical damage.
    The FAA notes that ``remove from service'' in this AD indicates
that the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly should be permanently removed
from service if a crack is found. Any cracked HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly cannot be repaired and returned to service per the
requirements of this AD.

Request To Remove ``Before Further Flight''

    FedEx requested that the FAA remove the phrase ``before further
flight'' from paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (iii) of the NPRM (paragraphs
(g)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this AD). FedEx reasoned that since the visual
inspection, knife edge coating removal, and FPI are performed at every
piece-part opportunity of the mating HPT 1st-stage disk, HPT 2nd-stage
disk, or the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, ``before further flight''
is redundant. Additionally, FedEx stated that the overhaul facility
must comply with the engine manual inspection criteria and would have
no other option but to make the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly
permanently unserviceable.
    The FAA agrees and removed ``before further flight'' from
paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this AD.

Request To Clarify Part Replacement After Crack Is Found

    MTU requested clarification regarding whether the mating HPT 1st-
stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage hub needs to be replaced if a crack is
found after performing the inspections proposed by paragraph
(g)(2)(iii) of the NPRM (paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD), or if both
the mating HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub need to be
replaced.
    If a crack is found as identified in the shaded region of Figure 1
to paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD (Figure 1) that extends toward the
knife-edge region of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, this AD
requires replacement of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, mating HPT
1st-stage disk, and HPT 2nd-stage hub.

Request To Clarify Terminating Action

    UAL requested clarification if paragraph (h), Terminating Action,
of the NPRM applies to the visual inspection and FPI of the HPT 2nd-
stage air seal assembly proposed by paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM
(paragraph (g)(1) of this AD).
    The FAA notes that there is no terminating action to the visual
inspection and FPI of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The visual inspection and FPI required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD are required for all HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assemblies, including P/Ns others than 1A8209 or 1A8209-001. As stated
in an earlier response, with the removal of the BSI requirements from
this AD, the FAA removed the terminating action from this AD.

Request To Clarify Applicability for Visual Inspection and FPI

    UAL requested clarification of whether paragraph (g)(1) of this AD
applies if an HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, with a P/N other than P/
N 1A8209 or 1A8209-001, is installed.
    Delta requested that an applicability statement referencing P/Ns
for affected HPT 2nd-stage air seal assemblies be added to paragraph
(g)(2) of the NPRM. Paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM proposed to require a
visual inspection of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, stripping the
knife edge coating from the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, and then
performing an FPI of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly. Delta noted
that if an HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly has been modified and re-
identified with a new P/N using PW SB PW2000 72-754, Revision No. 2,
dated April 30, 2019, then it should not be subject to the same
inspections as HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, P/N 1A8209 or 1A8209-
001.
    The FAA disagrees and notes that the visual inspection and the FPI
required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD are required for all HPT
2nd-stage air seal assemblies, regardless of the P/N. The FAA did not
update this AD.

Request To Allow Installation of Mating Parts Without Past HPT 2nd-
Stage Air Seal Assembly Inspection Verification

    Delta requested that a mating HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage
hub made serviceable before the effective date of this AD be eligible
for installation without verification that all past HPT 2nd-stage air
seal assemblies had visual inspections and FPI to verify no cracks were
found. Delta reasoned that the inspections were not previously required
and adequate records may not exist. Additionally, Delta stated it might
not be possible to re-inspect all previous HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assemblies for cracks as some may have been scrapped before the
inspection.
    The FAA notes that an HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub made
serviceable before the effective date of this AD are not subject to the
requirements of (g)(1)(iii) of the AD until their next piece part
exposure. The FAA did not update this AD.

Request To Clarify the Location of the Forward and Aft Edges

    Delta and MTU requested that the FAA clarify the location of the
forward and aft edges of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly. Delta
asked if the forward edge is the barrel section forward of the #1
knife-edge or any part that extends beyond the barrel section.
    The FAA removed references to ``forward edge'' and ``aft edge'' of
the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly from this AD. In their place, the
FAA added Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD to specify the
locations of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly that require
inspection for cracks.

Request To Clarify the Definition of Through-Crack

    Delta and FedEx requested that the FAA clarify the definition of
``through-crack.'' Delta asked if a ``through-crack'' is a crack going
through the axial direction or radial direction of the HPT 2nd-stage
air seal assembly. Delta referenced Figure 5 of NDIP-1217 that appears
to show a through-crack in the axial direction. Delta inferred from
paragraph (i)(4) of the NPRM that a through-crack is in the radial
direction. Delta requested a diagram to help illustrate what
constitutes a through-crack.
    FedEx stated that a lenticular seal is a two-piece component that
becomes an inseparable assembly during manufacturing. As a result, it
would be impossible to distinguish a through-crack from a surface crack
over a large area of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly's exterior
since its interior surfaces are inaccessible. FedEx cited Chapter 72-
52-60, Inspection/Check-01, Figures 801 and 801A, of the PW2000 Series
Engine Manual, which highlights areas where through-thickness cracks
are critical. According to FedEx, however, these images fail to address
the ability to determine whether a surface crack is a ``through-
crack.'' Additionally, the PW2000 Series Engine

Manual does not provide dimensions that bound the areas making HPT disk
replacement subjective.
    The FAA agrees that it is difficult to differentiate between a
surface crack and through-crack; therefore, the FAA removed references
to ``through-crack'' from this AD. The FAA notes that any crack, in any
direction, found in the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, requires
removal of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly from service. As stated
in an earlier response, the FAA added Figure 1 to show the locations of
the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly that require inspection for cracks.
However, the FAA is not providing dimensions that bind the areas. If
the inspections of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly reveal a crack
in the shaded regions of Figure 1, which extends towards the knife-edge
region, the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly must be removed from
service.

Request To Clarify Engine Shop Visit

    Delta requested that the FAA clarify the definition of ``engine
shop visit'' related to which engine flanges the FAA considers ``major
mating engine flanges.'' Delta requested that the FAA exclude the low-
pressure compressor (LPC) module flange as a major mating engine flange
because LPC module life limited parts (LLPs) can be swapped while the
engine is installed on the aircraft. Delta reasoned that the separation
of the LPC module flange should not require replacement of the HPT 2nd-
stage air seal assembly. These LPC swaps may extend time between engine
shop visits if the LLPs are located in the LPC.
    The FAA determined the need to revise the definition of ``engine
shop visit'' by replacing separation of ``major mating engine flanges''
with separation of the ``N or M engine flange.'' If the LPC swap does
not involve separating the N or M engine flange, then the compliance
time for replacing the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly has not occurred
as required by this AD.

Request To Update the Definition of Piece-Part Opportunity

    Delta requested that the FAA update the definition of ``piece-part
opportunity'' from ``when the part is completely disassembled'' to
``any time the seal is removed from the HPT module.'' Delta reasoned
that while the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly is referred to as an
``assembly,'' the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly cannot be dissembled.
    The FAA partially agrees and updated the definition to clarify what
constitutes ``piece-part opportunity'' for the HPT 1st-stage disk, HPT
2nd-stage hub, and HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly.

Request To Update the Definition of Part Eligible for Installation

    Delta requested that the FAA update the definition of ``part
eligible for installation'' to remove paragraph (i)(3)(ii) and to refer
only to ``An HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly that is not P/N 1A8209 or
1A8209-001.'' Delta reasoned that paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of the NPRM,
which states that an HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly that has been
modified using the service information is eligible for installation, is
unnecessary because the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly receives a new
P/N, which is not P/N 1A8209 or 1A8209-001, after repair.
    The FAA agrees and revised the definition of an HPT 2nd-stage air
seal assembly that is eligible for installation, now in paragraph
(h)(3) of this AD, to refer to an HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly with
a P/N other than 1A8209 or 1A8209-001.

Request To Update Service Information Revision

    MTU requested that the FAA reference PW SB PW2000 72-754, Revision
No. 3, dated August 14, 2019, in this AD instead of Revision No. 2,
dated April 30, 2019.
    The FAA agrees. The FAA updated PW SB PW2000 72-754 to Revision No.
3, dated August 14, 2019, throughout this AD.

Request To Update the Service Information Description

    MTU requested that the FAA update the service information
description in the Other Related Service Information paragraph of the
NPRM (Related Service Information of this AD) to include the
replacement and modification of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly.
    The FAA agrees. The FAA updated the service information description
in the Related Service Information paragraph in this AD.

Request To Update the Costs of Compliance

    UAL requested that the Costs of Compliance include additional costs
such as delays in engine builds and modifications. UAL reasoned that
piece-part modification of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, mating
HPT 1st-stage disk, and HPT 2nd-stage hub are independent of each
other. Scraping all parts proposed by paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of the NPRM
(paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD) will force engine centers to delay
routing the mating HPT 1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub for
modification until the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly is inspected,
thus delaying an engine build or incurring costs while the mating HPT
1st-stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub are partially or fully scrapped.
    The FAA disagrees with updating the costs of compliance. The cost
analysis in AD rulemaking actions typically includes only the costs
associated with complying with the AD and does not include secondary
costs. The FAA's cost estimate includes the work hours and parts costs
to perform the required actions.

No Comments on This AD

    ALPA supported the AD and appreciated the opportunity to comment.
Boeing had no comments.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and
any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed
in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on
any operator.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed PW SB PW2000 72-754, Revision No. 3, dated August
14, 2019, and PW SB PWF117 72-402, Revision No. 2, dated May 3, 2019.
The SBs describe procedures for replacing or modifying the HPT 2nd-
stage air seal assembly.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The FAA may
consider additional rulemaking based on further investigation of the
unsafe condition.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 445 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visually inspect, strip the knife edge  10 work-hours x $85 per               $0            $850        $378,250
 coating, and FPI the HPT 2nd-stage      hour = $850.
 air seal assembly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements. The FAA has no way of determining how many replacements
of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly will be done with a modified HPT
2nd-stage air seal assembly and how many will be done with a new HPT
2nd-stage air seal assembly. The FAA also has no way of determining the
number of engines that might need replacement of the HPT 2nd-stage air
seal assembly, HPT 1st-stage disk, and HPT 2nd-stage hub.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly     10 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $5,000          $5,850
 with modified HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly.  $850.
Replace the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly     0.25 work-hours x $85 per hour =         355,000      355,021.25
 with new seal assembly.                         $21.25.
Replace the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly,    0.25 work-hours x $85 per hour =         970,000      970,021.25
 HPT 1st-stage disk, and HPT 2nd-stage hub       $21.25.
 (based on FPI results).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2021-14-13 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 39-21640; Docket No. FAA-2020-
0442; Project Identifier AD-2020-00260-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 1,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW2037, PW2037M,
PW2040, and F117-PW-100 model turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an uncontained engine
failure resulting from cracks originating in the knife edge of the
high-pressure turbine (HPT) 2nd-stage air seal assembly. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
uncontained HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

(1) Visual Inspection and Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) of
HPT 2nd-Stage Air Seal Assembly

    After the effective date of this AD, at every piece-part
opportunity of the HPT 1st-stage disk, HPT 2nd-stage hub, or the HPT
2nd-stage air seal assembly:
    (i) Perform a visual inspection of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly, strip the knife edge coating from the HPT 2nd-stage air
seal assembly, and then perform an FPI of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal
assembly.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(i): Guidance on striping the knife
edge coating from the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly required by
paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD can be found Chapter 72-52-60,
Repair-01, of the PW2000 Series Engine Manual.
    (ii) If a crack is found in the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly
during the visual inspection or FPI required by paragraph (g)(1)(i)
of this AD, remove the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly from service
and replace it with a part eligible for installation.

    (iii) During the visual inspection or FPI required by paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of this AD, if a crack is found in the shaded regions of
the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly identified in Figure 1 to
paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this AD (Figure 1), which extends towards
the knife-edge region of the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, remove
the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, mating HPT 1st-stage disk, and
HPT 2nd-stage hub from service, and replace the parts with parts
eligible for installation. In order to return the mating HPT 1st-
stage disk and HPT 2nd-stage hub to service, the inspections of the
HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly cannot reveal a crack identified in
the shaded regions of Figure 1, which extends towards the knife-edge
region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28JY21.013

(2) Replacement of HPT 2nd-Stage Air Seal Assembly

    (i) For PW PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 model turbofan engines,
at the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD,
remove the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, part number (P/N) 1A8209
or 1A8209-001, and replace it with a part eligible for installation.
    (ii) For PW F117-PW-100 model turbofan engines, at the next
piece part opportunity after the effective date of this AD, remove
the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, P/N 1A8209 or 1A8209-001, and
replace it with a part eligible for installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of the N or M engine flange. The separation of engine
flanges solely for the purposes of transportation of the engine
without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine
shop visit.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, a ``piece-part opportunity'' is:
    (i) For the HPT 1st-stage disk, when the disk is removed from
the engine and all the blades are removed;
    (ii) For the HPT 2nd-stage hub, when the hub is removed from the
engine and all the blades are removed; or
    (iii) For the HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly, when the assembly
is removed from either the HPT 1st-stage disk or the HPT 2nd-stage
hub.
    (3) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is an HPT 2nd-stage air seal assembly with a P/N
other than 1A8209 or 1A8209-001.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information. You may email your request to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Carol Nguyen,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on June 30, 2021.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-15947 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P