[Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 55)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13695-13697]
[DOCID:fr23mr10-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0233; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-014-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. This proposed AD would
require repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks in the
center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings, and corrective actions if
necessary; and repetitive replacements of rainbow fittings, which would
extend the repetitive interval for the next inspection. This proposed
AD results from a report of fatigue cracking of the wing upper and
lower rainbow fittings during durability testing and on in-service
airplanes. Analysis of in-service cracking has shown that these rainbow
fittings are susceptible to multiple site fatigue damage. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct such fatigue cracks, which
could grow large and lead to the failure of the fitting and a
catastrophic failure of the center wing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 770-494-
5445; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.htmlx. You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone
(404) 474-5554; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0233;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-014-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Fatigue cracking of the wing upper and lower rainbow fittings
during the durability test and on in-service airplanes indicates a
requirement to perform inspections prior to the current published
Hercules Airfreighter Series Progressive Inspection Procedures and
Hercules Airfreighter Progressive Inspection Procedures intervals.
Analysis of in-service cracking has shown that these rainbow fittings
are susceptible to multiple site fatigue damage. This condition, if not
corrected, could lead to the failure of the rainbow fittings and a
catastrophic failure of the center wing.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3,
including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated April 25, 2008. The service
bulletin describes procedures for repetitive eddy current inspections
to detect cracks in the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings.
The service bulletin specifies marking and reporting suspected cracks
but does not provide corrective actions.
    The service bulletin also describes procedures for repetitively
replacing the upper and lower rainbow fittings, which would extend the
interval for the next eddy current inspection. The replacement includes
related investigative and corrective actions. The related investigative
actions consist of two types of inspections: (1) A general visual
inspection for damage and defects (including corrosion and cracking) of
the wing faying structure; and (2) a primary automated bolt hole eddy
current (ABHEC) inspection to detect cracks of all opened fitting
attachment fastener holes in the upper and lower surface skin panel,
stringers, splice straps, and splice angles that are common to the
rainbow fittings prior to installing the new rainbow fitting. The
service bulletin describes procedures for a ``redundant'' (backup)
ABHEC inspection of any suspected damage.
    The corrective actions consist of repairing confirmed damage within
certain limits, and contacting the manufacturer for damage that exceeds
those limits. The service bulletin provides no corrective actions for
damage or defects found during the visual inspection.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin.'' The
proposed AD would also require sending the inspection results to
Lockheed.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    In Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3, dated April 25,
2008, the NOTE in paragraph 1.B.(1) states that operators who have
completed a Lockheed Martin usage evaluation analysis may adjust the
intervals provided in the service bulletin by severity factors
developed for their inspection programs. The proposed AD would require
approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for such an
adjustment.
    Although the service bulletin specifies that operators may contact
the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions and the
service bulletin does not specify corrective actions for damage or
cracking found during the visual inspection, this proposed AD would
require operators to repair those conditions using a method approved by
the FAA.
    Although the service bulletin does not specify corrective actions
for airplanes on which cracking is found during the eddy current
inspections, this proposed AD would require operators to replace the
rainbow fittings if any cracking is found.
    Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3, dated April 25,
2008, also recommends grounding airplanes that have accumulated 20,000
or more flight hours until inspections are done. We have provided a
grace period of 365 days or 600 flight hours after the effective date
of this AD in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to prevent grounding the
fleet. This time period does not present a safety concern since this
area is already being inspected at a repetitive interval and the
inspection to this point would have found cracks as intended. We find
that the short initial inspection period provided in the proposed AD
provides an adequate level of safety.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is
later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 14 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                         Average                                                  U.S.-
                 Action                    Work hours  labor  rate    Parts         Cost per  airplane         registered             Fleet cost
                                                         per hour                                               airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection..............................           20          $85       None  $1,700 per inspection cycle.              14  $23,800 per inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Fitting replacement.....................        2,438          $85    $40,000  $247,230....................              14  $3,461,220
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company:
Docket No. FAA-2010-0233; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-014-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 7, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G
airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of fatigue cracking of the
wing upper and lower rainbow fittings during durability testing and
on in-service airplanes. Analysis of in-service cracking has shown
that these rainbow fittings are susceptible to multiple site fatigue
damage. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
detect and correct such fatigue cracks, which could grow large and
lead to the failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the
center wing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Initial Inspections

    (g) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Do eddy current inspections to detect cracking of
the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings on the left and
right side of the airplane. Do the actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82,
Revision 3, including Appendixes A and B, dated April 25, 2008. Any
cracks found during the inspections required by paragraph (g) of
this AD must be repaired before further flight in accordance with
the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours on the
rainbow fitting.
    (2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours on the rainbow fitting
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

Repetitive Inspection Schedule

    (h) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours on the center wing,
until the rainbow fitting has accumulated 30,000 total flight hours.
Any cracks found during the inspections required by paragraph (h) of
this AD must be repaired before further flight in accordance with
the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD.

Rainbow Fitting Replacements

    (i) Before the accumulation of 30,000 flight hours on the
rainbow fitting or within 600 flight hours after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace the rainbow fitting, do
all related investigative actions, and do all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3,
including Appendix C, dated April 25, 2008. Replace the rainbow
fitting thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours.

Post-Replacement Repetitive Inspections

    (j) For upper and lower rainbow fittings replaced in accordance
with paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD: Do the eddy current
inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD within 15,000
flight hours after doing the replacement and repeat the eddy current
inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours until the rainbow
fittings are replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or (k) of
this AD.

Repair of Damaged Rainbow Fittings and Associated Areas

    (k) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h)
of this AD, any crack is detected, before further flight, replace
the rainbow fitting, do all related investigative actions and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with Paragraph 2.C. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-
82, Revision 3, including Appendix C, dated April 25, 2008, except
as provided by paragraph (l) of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin

    (l) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3,
including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated April 25, 2008, specifies to
contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair
conditions, and where the service bulletin does not specify
corrective actions if certain conditions are found, this AD requires
repairing those conditions using a method approved by the Manager,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair
method to be approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by
this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically
refer to this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (m)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Carl Gray, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 17, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-6307 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


jurisdictions. The tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all
commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by the SLSDC
and the SLSMC. The SLSDC is revising its regulations to reflect the
fees and charges levied by the SLSMC in Canada starting in the 2006
navigation season, which are effective only in Canada. An amendment to
increase the minimum charge per lock for those vessels that are not
pleasure craft or subject in Canada to tolls under items 1 and 2 of the
tariff for full or partial transit of the Seaway will apply in the U.S.
(See Supplementary Information.)
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/09/16  81 FR 6810
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/10/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   03/17/16  81 FR 14390
Final Rule Effective................   03/21/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Agency Contact: Carrie Lavigne, Department of Transportation, Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    RIN: 2135-AA38

216.  Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various
Categories (Rulemaking Resulting From a Section 610 Review)

    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 981 et seq.
    Abstract: The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)
and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada,
under international agreement, jointly publish and currently administer
the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures
in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the
SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the
Seaway Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will
update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition
of Vessels; Preclearance and Security for Tolls; Tolls Assessment and
Payment; Seaway Navigation; Dangerous Cargo; Toll Assessment and
Payment; and, Information and Reports. These amendments are necessary
to take account of updated procedures and will enhance the safety of
transits through the Seaway. Several of the amendments are merely
editorial or for clarification of existing requirements.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/05/16  81 FR 6198
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/07/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   03/15/16  81 FR 13744
Final Rule Effective................   03/21/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Agency Contact: Carrie Lavigne, Department of Transportation, Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    RIN: 2135-AA39

 BILLING CODE 4910-61-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

217. +Pipeline Safety: Amendments to Parts 192 and 195 To Require Valve
Installation and Minimum Rupture Detection Standards

    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    Abstract: This rule would propose installation of automatic shutoff
valves, remote controlled valves, or equivalent technology and
establish performance based meaningful metrics for rupture detection
for gas and liquid transmission pipelines. The overall intent is that
rupture detection metrics will be integrated with ASV and RCV placement
with the objective of improving overall incident response. Rupture
response metrics would focus on mitigating large, unsafe, uncontrolled
release events that have a greater potential consequence. The areas
proposed to be covered include High Consequence Areas (HCA) for
hazardous liquids and HCA, Class 3 and 4 for natural gas (including
could affect areas).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Agency Contact: Lawrence White, Attorney-Advisor, Department of
Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:
292 366-7041.
    RIN: 2137-AF06

218. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information
Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains

    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
    Abstract: This rulemaking, developed in consultation with the
Federal Railroad Administration, would revise PHMSA's regulations to
expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans
(OSRPs) based on thresholds of liquid petroleum oil that apply to an
entire train. We are also

proposing to revise the format and clarify requirements of a
comprehensive OSRP and to require railroads to share information about
high-hazard flammable train operations with state and tribal emergency
response organizations (i.e., State Emergency Response Commissions and
Tribal Emergency Response Commissions) to improve community
preparedness. Lastly, PHMSA is proposing an update to boiling point
testing procedures to provide regulatory flexibility and promotes
enhanced safety in transport through accurate packing group assignment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/01/14  79 FR 45079
ANPRM Comment Period End............   09/30/14  .......................
NPRM................................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Agency Contact: Victoria Lehman, Transportation Specialist,
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    RIN: 2137-AF08

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Final Rule Stage

219. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    Abstract: In recent years, there have been significant hazardous
liquid pipeline accidents, most notably the 2010 crude oil spill near
Marshall, Michigan, during which almost one million gallons of crude
oil were spilled into the Kalamazoo River. In response to accident
investigation findings, incident report data and trends, and
stakeholder input, PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on October 13, 2015. Previously,
Congress had enacted the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act that included several provisions that are relevant to the
regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines. Shortly after the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act was passed, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its accident
investigation report on the Marshall, Michigan, accident. In this
rulemaking action, PHMSA is amending the Pipeline Safety Regulations to
improve protection of the public, property, and the environment by
closing regulatory gaps where appropriate, and ensuring that operators
are increasing the detection and remediation of unsafe conditions, and
mitigating the adverse effects of hazardous liquid pipeline failures.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/18/10  75 FR 63774
Comment Period Extended.............   01/04/11  76 FR 303
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/18/11  .......................
Extended Comment Period End.........   02/18/11  .......................
NPRM................................   10/13/15  80 FR 61610
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/08/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Agency Contact: John A. Gale, Transportation Regulations
Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    RIN: 2137-AE66

220. Pipeline Safety: Issues Related to the Use of Plastic Pipe in Gas
Pipeline Industry (RRR)

    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    Abstract: In this rule, PHMSA is amending the natural and other gas
pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR part 192) to address regulatory
requirements involving plastic piping systems used in gas services.
These amendments are intended to correct errors, address
inconsistencies, and respond to petitions for rulemaking. The
requirements in several subject matter areas are affected, including
incorporation of tracking and traceability provisions; design factor
for polyethylene (PE) pipe; more stringent mechanical fitting
requirements; updated and additional regulations for risers; expanded
use of Polyamide-11 (PA-11) thermoplastic pipe; incorporation of newer
Polyamide-12 (PA-12) thermoplastic pipe; and incorporation of updated
and additional standards for fittings.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/21/15  80 FR 29263
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/31/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Agency Contact: Cameron H. Satterthwaite, Transportation
Regulations Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    RIN: 2137-AE93

221. Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident
and Incident Notification, and Other Changes (RRR)

    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    Abstract: PHMSA is amending the pipeline safety regulations to
address requirements of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and
Job Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Act), and to update and clarify certain
regulatory requirements. Under the 2011 Act, PHMSA is adding a specific
time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents and
incidents and adding provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of
certain new projects. Among other provisions, PHMSA is adding a
procedure for renewal of expiring special permits, and for submitters
of information requesting PHMSA to keep some information confidential.
In addition, PHMSA is amending the operator qualification (OQ)
requirements, drug and alcohol testing requirements, and incorporating
consensus standards by reference for in-line inspection (ILI) and
Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/10/15  80 FR 39916
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/08/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Agency Contact: John A. Gale, Transportation Regulations
Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    RIN: 2137-AE94

 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Proposed Rule Stage

222. +Cargo Preference

    Legal Authority: 49 CFR 1.66; 46 app U.S.C. 1101; 46 app U.S.C.
1241; 46 U.S.C. 2302 (e)(1); Pub. L. 91-469
    Abstract: This rulemaking would revise and clarify the cargo
preference regulations that have not been revised substantially since
1971. The rulemaking would also implement statutory changes, including
section 3511, Public Law 110-417, of The National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2009, which provides enforcement authority.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Agency Contact: Mitch Hudson, Attorney, Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    RIN: 2133-AB74

 BILLING CODE 4910-81-P

[FR Doc. 2016-12913 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6151-6152]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3011-017]

NATCO Products Corporation; Notice of Application for Surrender
of License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for surrender of minor license.
    b. Project No: 3011-017.
    c. Date Filed: December 31, 2019.
    d. Applicant: NATCO Products Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Arctic Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The 478-kilowatt project is located on the South
Branch of the Pawtuxet River, in West Warwick, Kent County, Rhode
Island. The project does not occupy any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Steve Burke, NATCO Products Corporation,
155 Brookside Avenue, West Warwick, RI 02893; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Diana Shannon,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: February 28, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-3011-017. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: In 2017, the applicant filed a Notice of
Intent to file an application for a subsequent license. Upon evaluation
of costs associated with study requirements, expected new license
requirements, and repairs to the turbine, the applicant has decided to
surrender the project. The applicant proposes to decommission the
project by installing a steel/concrete bulkhead to prevent flow through
the turbine, close and lock the two turbine gate control arms; and
remove all fuses to isolate the generating equipment from the power
grid. The dam and powerhouse would remain in place.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and

reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE''
as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant
and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: January 29, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-02108 Filed 2-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Qualitative Assessment of the Impact of Changes in Use of Methyl Bromide on Dry Cured Pork Product Facilities in Support of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED)

FROM: Jonathan Becker, Senior Science Advisor William Chism, Senior Agronomist Colwell Cook, Biologist Monisha Kaul, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

David Donaldson, Economist Elisa Rim, Economist T J Wyatt, Agricultural Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief, Biological Analysis Branch Istanbul Yusuf, Acting Chief, Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

TO: John Leahy, Senior Policy Analyst Eric Olson, Team Leader Steven Weiss, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Registration Division ( 7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL DATE: 26 July 2006 Page 2 SUMMARY As part of the reregistration of methyl bromide, the Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( BEAD) assessed the potential impacts of risk mitigation and enforcement/ compliance options. These options were outlined in the EPA Federal Register Notice of March 29, 2006 ( EPA, 2006). This document addresses the potential impacts to fumigations of dry cured pork. Other assessments address the impacts on quarantine commodities, non quarantine commodities, and structures/ food processing facilities.

BEAD does not expect significant impacts to result from lowering the air concentration limit of occupational exposure from five ( 5) ppm as a ceiling to one ( 1) ppm as a 8 hour time weighted average, provided facilities have the option to utilize air purifying respirators to protect employees when air concentrations are between these points. BEAD also does not expect significant impacts if EPA were to require Fumigation Management Plans ( FMP) and other actions that focus on compliance and/ or enforcement.

It appears that by using active aeration most dry cured pork facilities would be able to accommodate aeration buffers. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the 99 percentile whole field buffer is used for the regulatory decision making. Further, because curing facilities tend to be located in rural areas and may not need to have employees working other processes during fumigation, treatment buffers are likely to be feasible as well There may be some curing facilities that will need to modify their current practices to meet the proposed buffer requirements. There are several ways to meet these requirements; for example, site specific modeling can be used by the facilities to select methods to implement that would result in the reduction of buffers. In most cases, facilities could potentially achieve the greatest buffer reduction by using a combination of methods. Treatment buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved gas retention, lower rates or treating smaller volumes of commodities. Aeration buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved ventilation systems ( greater air exchanges per minute, taller stacks), lower rates, treating smaller volumes, or installing a capture and destruction system. However, these changes will entail some costs.

However, if curing facility cannot meet the buffer requirements, even with the adoption of additional equipment, they would not be able to use methyl bromide. Since 2005, use of methyl bromide is only permitted under the Montreal Protocol for certain uses, including those that have been designated as a critical need. EPA and USDA have evaluated exemption requests and found that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in this sector ( USA, 2006a, 2006b). Therefore, if buffers are infeasible, some facilities may have to cease operation. This may impact producers and consumers, as well as the local economy. BEAD does not have adequate data about the specific site characteristics of these facilities to quantify the distribution and magnitude of these impacts. However, BEAD anticipates that by using a combination of mitigation options most facilities will be able to meet the buffer requirements. Page 3 BACKGROUND Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless gas that is widely used as a soil and structural fumigant to control a range of insect, fungal and weedy pests. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) is presently making a determination of methyl bromide's eligibility for reregistration. In this process, OPP is assessing the risks and benefits of methyl bromide use to control pests in a number of structural conditions, including dry cured pork processing facilities.

The Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances Methyl Bromide has been identified as an ozone depleting substance under the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances to which the United States is a party. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty developed to protect the earth from the detrimental effects of ozone stratospheric depletion. Initially signed in 1987 by the United States and 26 other countries, there are now 189 signatories to the treaty. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have agreed to specific reduction steps that lead to the phaseout of production and use of ozonedepleting substances, including methyl bromide. The Protocol initiated an incremental reduction in methyl bromide, leading to a complete phase out, in industrialized nations, by January 1, 2005. Developing countries are to phase out use by January 1, 2015.

However, there are some cases where there are no available alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and acceptable from a public health standpoint. The treaty allows for exemptions to the phase out for critical uses, quarantine and preshipment uses, and emergency uses. Critical uses are those situations where there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives and significant market disruptions would occur if methyl bromide were not available. Quarantine and preshipment uses of methyl bromide are often required by national and international law to prevent the introduction of exotic pests into new areas. Unanticipated emergency use of methyl bromide, for example to address public health problems, is authorized by the Montreal Protocol, if there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives and the quantity used does not exceed 20 metric tons.

The use addressed in this document has received a critical use exemption under the Montreal Protocol for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. A critical use exemption of 2008 is currently being evaluated by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. This represents situations of severe or unique pest problems for which the available alternatives are not feasible and will result in severe market disruptions if methyl bromide is not available.

Parties to the Montreal Protocol approve an amount of methyl bromide for post harvest and soil use; that amount is the maximum amount that can be newly produced methyl bromide or used from critical use stockpiles. Entities that are users of " critical use" methyl bromide do not have access to the general use methyl bromide stockpiles ( i. e., those methyl bromide stocks generated before January 1, 2005. This, therefore, sets an upper limit on the amount of methyl bromide that is allocated to the post harvest sector and can be used for dry cured hams, and consequently, on the total volume that can be fumigated in any one year period. Page 4 Risks of Concern As part of the Office of Pesticide Program's determination of methyl bromide's eligibility for reregistration, the Office conducted risk assessments for methyl bromide use in enclosures, chambers, and food processing/ storage facilities. There are no aggregate dietary risks of concern. However, there are risks of concern associated with the use of methyl bromide via occupational exposure during both treatment and aeration and via bystander exposure during aeration ( EPA 2006). Occupational exposure may occur to fumigant applicators during and immediately after treatment and to certain employees at the treated sites, especially those handling treated commodities. Bystanders refer to site employees and people unaffiliated with the treated site who are present in the general vicinity. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has also assessed the potential impacts on the incidents of skin cancer due to stratospheric ozone depletion caused by the use of methyl bromide for non soil fumigations.

OPP is evaluating various means of managing the risks of concern from occupational and bystander exposure. In determining an appropriate risk management strategy, OPP considers a number of factors including efficacy of the measures, enforceability, the impact on users of methyl bromide and the extent to which these measures can also contribute to reduction in ozone depletion. This document presents OPP's evaluation of various risk reduction strategies according to these factors. However, because of the great diversity in sites being treated with methyl bromide, OPP has limited ability to make a quantitative evaluation.

RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Bystander and Occupational Exposure during Treatment and Aeration Broadly speaking, there are three risk management strategies for addressing bystander risk to be considered. Within these broad strategies some or all of the 17 different options ( EPA 2006) suggested by EPA for public comment may be included. The broad strategies are adoption of a performance standard, command and control, and a hybrid approach that sets certain minimum requirements but permits flexibility to accommodate site specific characteristics. EPA believes the third option best addresses all the factors to be considered.

Performance Standard: EPA sets maximum air concentrations at reference points; sets criteria for determining reference point; sets criteria for monitoring; establishes penalties for exceedences.

Under this approach, EPA would establish performance standards to limit exposure to methyl bromide during treatment and during post treatment aeration. Essentially, this would entail defining how appropriate reference points ( potential bystanders) would be chosen, setting a maximum air concentration at those reference points, and establishing criteria for monitoring at the reference points. Fumigators would be responsible, via whatever means available, including those suggested by EPA ( EPA, 2006), to insure that air concentrations of methyl bromide do not exceed limits. EPA would also establish methods to ensure compliance. Page 5 The main advantage of this strategy is that it provides maximum flexibility to methyl bromide users to meet the safety standard and, therefore, minimizes the impacts on the regulated community. That, in turn, means that it would have the least impact of the three options on the total amount of methyl bromide used and released into the atmosphere.

The primary disadvantage of this strategy is the basic question of whether it can be implemented effectively. Unless the number and location of bystanders is limited and well defined, extensive monitoring both horizontally and vertically around the treated facility would be necessary to insure that the statutory requirement of reasonable certainty of no harm is met. Further, because compliance would depend on post treatment penalties for exceedences, the reporting and oversight requirements on the fumigator and state and local regulators would be onerous.

EPA does not believe a pure performance standard can be reliably implemented in a costeffective manner.

Command and Control: Buffer Zones: The second strategy represents the opposite end of the spectrum, where EPA would establish a single option to encompass all sites. The most likely option for addressing bystander risk would be to require treatment and aeration buffer zones, based on the total amount of methyl bromide used, that would result in a reasonable certainty of no harm for all possible fumigation scenarios. To account for all potential situations, the buffer zone would have to be substantial.

This strategy would be relatively easy to enforce, because it would depend on so few factors. With minimal effort by EPA and state and local regulators, EPA could also be assured that all use of methyl bromide would meet the statutory safety requirement   in fact, most uses would substantially surpass what would be necessary to meet the requirements. This strategy would also result in the greatest decrease in the total amount of methyl bromide used and released into the atmosphere of the three strategies because many facilities would be unable to comply with a large buffer zone and would have to use alternative pest control methods or cease operation.

However, the inability of many facilities to comply with this strategy would lead to large impacts on methyl bromide users. As explained in this document and the U. S. nomination of critical use exemptions to the Montreal Protocol, use of methyl bromide remains necessary in many situations. Without methyl bromide, there would be serious disruptions in global and interstate trade and many items would be unable to meet federal health requirements for safe and unadulterated food products. Consumers could face substantially higher costs for goods and some goods would probably not be available year around.

EPA does not believe such a simplistic strategy would be a cost effective means of insuring the safe use of methyl bromide.

Flexible Approach: Buffer Zones as a Function of Other Mitigation Actions: The third strategy combines the flexibility of the performance standard with the relative simplicity of clear, minimum standards. Some of the options suggested by EPA ( EPA, 2006) could be used in concert to achieve the statutory human health requirement. The basic requirement would be for a Page 6 buffer zone, but the size of the buffer would depend on the use of other risk management options. EPA's concept is for two buffers: a treatment buffer during fumigation and an aeration buffer following treatment as the gas is vented. The size of each buffer would be positively related to the amount or rate of methyl bromide used and the size of the facility/ enclosure fumigated. Reductions in any of these factors would permit a smaller required buffer. The size of the treatment buffer would be negatively related to the retention of gas in the fumigated enclosure. The tighter the enclosure, the less gas would escape and the smaller the treatment buffer. The size of the aeration buffer would be negatively related to the relative height of the point methyl bromide is vented ( a stack) and the speed of aeration ( i. e., as defined by air exchange rate), which improves mixing and reduces air concentrations. Increases in either of these factors would permit a smaller buffer for bystanders. The air exchange rate can also be manipulated instead.

As with the first possible strategy, this approach can reduce the cost of complying with the regulation by providing different facilities the ability to reduce bystander exposure according to the specific characteristics of the site. The clear, minimum requirements make it relatively easy to enforce and insure that the safety standards will be achieved. Some reductions in the total amount of methyl bromide will likely occur, contributing to reductions in ozone depletion.

The strategy will entail, however, some costs to the regulated community and to consumers of treated commodities. Some facilities may have to alter their fumigation practices or invest in mitigation measures. Despite its relative flexibility, some facilities may not be able to meet the requirements with the use of methyl bromide. They will be obligated to use other pest control measures or will be unable to operate. Some of these impacts will be passed on to consumers. This document describes in more detail the extent of EPA's information regarding these impacts.

Occupational Exposure Fumigators and employees who handle treated commodities soon after treatment may also be exposed to levels of methyl bromide exceeding EPA's level of concern. Current practice is that levels of methyl bromide are monitored and if concentrations are greater than five ( 5) ppm, respirators must be worn. Immediately after treatment, enclosures are often actively aerated to lower concentrations. Treatment buffers may also be enforced.

EPA's current plan is to lower the permissible concentration limit to one ( 1) ppm ( 8 hr TWA). Levels above this limit will require the use of respirators. Use of respirators may be burdensome for employees, especially in hot conditions, but should not otherwise significantly affect applicators or the operation of the facilities since it is common practice. Facilities would have the option of increasing aeration time to avoid the use of respirators, but where that would impinge on the movement of commodities, respirators can be used.

Enforcement/ Compliance Mechanisms The Agency is also considering several mechanisms to aid in enforcement and compliance. Chief among these would be a requirement to prepare and follow a Fumigation Management Plan. The FMP would detail how a specific fumigation would comply with the label restrictions, Page 7 including the establishment of buffer zones and the factors that determined the appropriate size. EPA envisions certification so that the FMP conforms to the label requirements.

Currently, most fumigations already follow some kind of plan, although all plans would now have to be brought into compliance with the new requirements of use. Once prepared for a fixed facility, the plan would need few modifications for repeated fumigations. Therefore, BEAD anticipates few impacts on applicators or facilities in preparing the FMP. The certification of the FMP may entail added cost to the fumigation, but currently BEAD has no way of predicting that cost.

Other compliance mechanisms include record keeping requirements and posting notices of fumigation, both on treated commodities and to the general public prior to the treatment of facilities or commodities. Record keeping requirements are not likely to entail significant added costs, since most fumigations are already closely monitored. Notices that a commodity has been treated should also not impose significant costs.

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW Since 2002, EPA's Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption ( CUE) process reviews and nominates various commodities for critical use, in this case ham and dry cured pork products. The following information is based on industry applications for a CUE and EPA proprietary data.

The processed or cured pork industry generates almost $ 6 billion in annual revenue. ( U. S. Census, 2002) Post harvest food storage is an integral part of operations because in many cases there are seasonal effects with most sales during holiday seasons. Therefore it is imperative for these industries to fumigate in order to maintain the commodity's integrity and quality. A representative facility generates about $ 48 million in annual revenue with a gross margin of about 25% and a net profit margin of about 3%.

DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND DRY CURED PROCESS Dry Cure Process Curing is a method of preserving meat that prevents harmful micro organisms from developing. Two curing methods have been developed   wet ( or brine) curing and dry curing. In wet curing, the curing ingredients were mixed with boiling water to form " pickling" brine. In dry curing, the ingredients were simply rubbed into the meat several times over the period of the cure. Based on our current understanding, methyl bromide is used only for dry cured pork products such as dry cured ham, dry cured country ham, hard salami, pepperoni, and sausage.

Historically, the dry curing process was calendar based   beginning in the winter months and ending the following autumn. Modern commercial production now controls the temperature and relative humidity to mimic the historical process and produces the product year round. The primary steps in the process are as follows: Page 8 " Winter Room"  Hams are typically salted and sugared using a dry rub method and kept at approximately 38 degrees Fahrenheit with low humidity for up to 50 days. The salt and sugar are then scraped and rubbed off of the ham. The high salt content is sufficient to keep insect pest pressure to a minimum.

" Spring Room"  Next, hams are wrapped in cotton netting and kept at approximately 50  55 degrees Fahrenheit at 50% humidity for 10  15 days. The low temperature and the short time in this stage limits insect problems.

" Summer or Aging Room"  Hams are then maintained between 80  90 degrees Fahrenheit at 55% humidity for up to 120 days. These conditions allow for the development of the characteristic flavor. Since the temperature and humidity are higher in this room, conditions are ideal for pest problems. It is at this stage that the application of methyl bromide is necessary to control mite and insect pests.

SITE DESCRIPTIONS Purpose of Methyl Bromide Fumigation It is common for producers of dry cured pork products to experience pest pressure from mites and insects such as the ham skipper, the red legged ham beetle, and dermestid beetles ( Table 1). These insects infest and feed on the meat as it cures and ages. Environmental conditions ( temperature and humidity) in and around the facility strongly influence the level of pest pressure. Under favorable ambient conditions, such as those seen in silo curing, pest pressure increases and a regular fumigation schedule is recommended. The Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) regulates the maximum levels of live or dead insects or insect parts that may be present in stored food products. Food commodities that exceed maximum limits allowed are considered adulterated by FDA and thus unfit for human consumption.

TABLE 1: KEY PESTS FOR METHYL BROMIDE IN HAM Pests for Which the Use of Methyl Bromide is Critical Damage Caused Necrobia rufipes ( Red Legged Ham Beetle or " Ham Borer") Piophila casei ( Cheese/ Ham Skipper) Dermestes spp. ( Dermested beetles) Mite species ( Ham Mites) The larvae and adults feed on the cured meat. The larvae burrow into the meat and/ or fat. Insect infested meat is adulterated and cannot be sold. 1 Mites feed and breed on the surface of cured meats and burrow into the meat. Uncontrolled, mite populations can increase rapidly, reaching enormous numbers.

1 FDA regulations can be found at: http:// www. fda. gov/ opacom/ laws/ fdcact/ fdcact4. htm and http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ dalbook. html. Additional discussion at USA ( 2006).

There are currently no chemical alternatives registered for use on hams in the U. S. that would provide the same level of pest control ( Table 2) and not affect product quality. Other than sanitation, no alternative techniques are being used. Sanitation is useful in increasing the time between methyl bromide fumigations but cannot, when used alone, replace methyl bromide fumigations. Page 9 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES FOR DRY CURED PORK PRODUCTS. Methyl Bromide Alternative Technical Reasons for the Alternative Not Being Feasible Phosphine alone & in combination Does not control mites. North Carolina has additional use restrictions.

Irradiation Does not readily kill exposed insects, but rather prevents further feeding and reproduction. Although unable to feed or reproduce, the surviving insects would still create phytosanitary problems and the high doses required to kill exposed insects may affect product quality. Consumer acceptance of irradiated food would hinder the adoption of this method.

Sulfuryl fluoride Recently received federal registration ( July 15, 2005). Sulfuryl fluoride binds to fats. Efficacy studies in commercial settings against the insect and mite pests are being planned.

Facilities Based on currently available information, there are approximately 80 facilities that produce dry cured meat products in the United States, and about 45 use methyl bromide for fumigations ( Table 3). BEAD was able to obtain specific address information for ten facilities. Three of these ten facilities are located in the US Bureau of Census Urban Areas or Urban Clusters1. In general, these facilities are located in the southeastern part of the United States, primarily in Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and South Carolina ( Figure 1).

Table 3: Number and Location of Dry Cured Meat Facilities Total Facilities In U. S. Number Of Facilities Using Methyl Bromide In CUE Process Number Of Facilities With Location Data Number Estimated Urbanized Area Or Urban Cluster Not In Urbanized Or Urban Cluster Approximately 80 Approximately 45 10 3 7 Source: 2002 Economic Census data. Available online at http:// www. census. gov/ prod/ www/ abs/ manuind2002 html 1 BEAD identified the location of each facility and compared it to areas defined as Urbanized Area or Urban Cluster by the 2000 US Census ( www. census. gov). An Urbanized Area consists of contiguous census blocks and block groups of at least 1,000 persons/ square mile that together encompass a population of at least 50,000 people. An Urban Cluster consists of contiguous census blocks and block groups that together encompass between 2,500 and 50,000 people. Page 10 Urban Facilities Non Urban Facilities Urban Areas Ham Facilities and Urban Areas Figure 1. Location of facilities for which BEAD has specific addresses. This map does not include 8 facilities in TN, NC, and GA for which specific street addresses were not available.

Curing facilities are up to 2 3 stories in height and typically have curing rooms that use either wood or stainless steel racks to hang the hams. The curing rooms can hold up to 4000 hams. BEAD has information on seven representative facilities from the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption process ( USA, 2006). One facility is between 10,000 and 50,000 cubic feet in size, five facilities are between 50,001 and 100,000 cubic feet in size and one facility is between 100,001 and 500,000 cubic feet in size. Average volume of these facilities is 111,000 cubic feet.

Use and Usage of Methyl Bromide The information on the usage of methyl bromide in this sector is primarily based on the methyl bromide critical use exemption applications. The Methyl Bromide CUE applicants requested rates between 0.67 to 4.56 lb methyl bromide per 1000 cubic feet. The 2008 nomination ( USA, 2006) under the Montreal Protocol requested a weighted average of 1.2 lb methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic feet. The fumigation time varies, but is usually 24 hours. Typically, there is a single fumigation per product cycle. Based on production, at a given facility there can be from 2 to 8 fumigations per year ( 3 to 5 times per year is most common). The distribution of total methyl bromide use corresponds to the distribution of facility sizes ( Cal DPR data 2002 2004 and Methyl Bromide CUE Bromide Facility Description for Ham, USA, 2006). For the 2008 calendar year, 43,325 pounds of methyl bromide were requested for use in this sector. Page 11 IMPACTS OF BUFFER ZONES ON FACILITIES BEAD examined a range of potential facility sizes and use rates to explore the potential impacts of treatment and aeration buffer zone requirements. Specifically, we examine facilities of 50,000 cu ft, 100,000 cu ft and 250,000 cu ft with treatments of 1 to 3 lb methyl bromide per 1,000 cu ft.

Based on our current knowledge, fumigated curing facilities tend to be located in more rural areas, which may permit relatively extensive buffer zones. Those in urban areas, however, may be constrained by space. Little site specific information is available and it is very difficult to determine feasible distances. This assessment is, by necessity, very qualitative. There may also be differing capacity to enforce a buffer zone during fumigation ( treatment buffer) and during venting ( aeration).

Imagine a facility occupying a square city block. Blocks are approximately 0.1 mile or about 500 feet on a side. If this facility could vent methyl bromide near the center of the space, it would have an aeration buffer of about 250 feet. Any aeration buffer larger than these distances would require the facility to undertake additional mitigation measures. If those measures would not reduce the aeration buffer below the maximum, the facility would be unable to use methyl bromide.

However, during treatment, gas may leak from any point in the facility, not just from the center. Therefore, an enforceable treatment zone, measured from the edge of the building, may be much smaller. In fact, in some cases the edge of the building may be near the property line. For the purpose of this assessment, BEAD assumes that a zone of 10 to 50 feet, about one tenth of the aeration zone, may be possible for a facility, depending on the size BEAD assumes that most facilities could impose a buffer for both treatment and aeration of around 250 feet ( roughly half a city block) and facilities in more rural areas would find larger buffers feasible.

Calculated Buffers The Agency used the PERFUM air model to estimate buffer distances ( EPA, 2006). Two buffers were calculated   a treatment buffer ( which accounts for the amount of methyl bromide leaking from the chamber during fumigation) and an aeration buffer ( which accounts for the amount of methyl bromide vented at the completion of the treatment).

The estimation of these buffers depend on a number of input parameters to the model such as atmospheric conditions ( held constant), application rate, chamber/ enclosure conditions ( e. g., gastightness fumigated volume, the use of stacks, building effects, and the rate and type of aeration. The tables of buffer distances identify various combinations of these input factors.

The PERFUM model generates distributions of buffers. Two distributions of buffers were developed from the model   a " maximum buffer" distance and the " whole field buffer" distance. Three values are presented in this document   the 95th percentile of the maximum buffer Page 12 distribution ( abbreviated herein as " 95 max"), the 99th percentile of the whole field buffer distribution (" 99 whole") and the 99.9th percentile of the whole field buffer distribution (" 99.9 whole"). For more detail on the models and the results, please refer to EPA's risk assessment ( EPA, 2006).

Treatment Buffers Table 4 presents estimated treatment buffers. The treatment buffer depends on how much methyl bromide is likely to escape, which depends on how tightly sealed a facility is against loss of methyl bromide and how long the treatment lasts. Ventilation systems do not influence the treatment zone.

It is difficult to estimate a likely loss from curing facilities. Historically, such curing sheds were probably very open. However, newer facilities may be quite well sealed in order to maintain proper temperature and humidity. We examine a range of loss rates: 1, 5, 10 and 25% of the gas lost over 24 hours. The 1% rate is likely an underestimate, as it is more representative of vacuum chambers. The California system assumes that 3% of the concentration is lost in an hour unless specifically measured. Therefore, a 12 hour treatment would lose 36% of the fumigation rate while a 24 hour treatment would lose 72% of the concentration rate. Therefore, our estimates may be somewhat low. Due to data limitations, we currently are limited to estimating treatment buffers for rates of 1 and 4 lb methyl bromide/ 1,000 cubic feet and some limited data at the 2 lb rate. Page 13 Table 4. Estimated Treatment Buffer Zones ( feet) Treat, emt Buffer ( ft) Site ( cubic ft) Rate ( lbs/ 1000 ft3) Loss DuringTreatment (%) 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole 1% 0 0 0 5% 0 0 0 10% 140 0 120 1 25% 480 170 190 5% 140 0 120 2 10% 380 140 370 1% 0 0 0 5% 380 140 370 10% 680 250 640 50,000 4 25% 1,270 460 1,190 1% 0 0 0 5% 190 40 170 10% 410 150 380 1 25% 820 300 760 5% 410 150 380 2 10% 710 270 660 1% 120 0 100 5% 710 270 660 10% 1,100 400 1,050 100,000 4 25% 1,940 680 1,860 1% 0 0 0 5% 430 150 400 10% 780 300 710 1 25% 1,450 530 1,350 5% 780 300 710 2 10% 1,250 460 1,170 1% 330 100 320 5% 1,250 460 1,170 10% 1,920 690 1,830 250,000 4 25% 3,430 1,150 3,280 Source: EPA 2006. Note: BEAD anticipates that some minimum buffer zone would be established for situations listed as zero. California currently has a 10 foot minimum.

Generally, the estimated treatment buffers for the 99 percentile whole field appear feasible for most curing facilities, provided loss during treatment is not excessive and higher rates are not critical.

Other mitigation options that would permit smaller treatment zones are limited. There are three primary ways ( alone or in combination) that a facility may reduce the required treatment buffer: ( 1) Reduce the rate ( amount of methyl bromide/ 1,000 cu ft), ( 2) partition the facility and fumigate smaller volumes and ( 3) improve the gas retention of the structure.

Rate Reductions: Reducing the application rate may not be practical in many situations because certain pests will not be destroyed at the lower rates.

Partitioning Structures: Fumigating in smaller units may also present logistical problems, depending on the facility. Page 14 Improving Gas Retention: Newly constructed facilities are likely to have been constructed in a manner that would lower fumigant loss rates during treatment. However, it may be very difficult for older facilities to improve gas retention without complete and costly renovation. With very large structures, there are likely technical limits to the ability to avoid losses, even with newer materials and construction methods. However, this may be the most direct way of meeting the requirements of treatment buffers while maintaining operations.

Aeration Buffers Table 5 presents the estimated aeration zone for facilities with no active ventilation system ( passive aeration) for different regulatory standards: 95 max, 99 whole, and 99.9 whole ( see EPA 2006 for details about the interpretation of these regulatory standards). BEAD assumes most curing facilities currently do not actively vent methyl bromide following fumigation. This may be a restrictive assumption as facilities would normally like to aerate rapidly in order to return to business. For some of the larger facilities, the model reaches its limit, implying that the buffer would have to be calculated by different means but would exceed 4,725 feet ( nearly one mile).

Table 5. Estimated Aeration Buffer Zone ( feet), No Active Ventilation System Rate ( lb MeBr/ 1,000 cu ft) 1.0 2.0 3.0 Volume Treated ( cu ft) 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole 50,000 1,260 460 1,180 1,920 690 1,840 2,475 850 2,360 100,000 1,950 670 1,850 2,990 1,020 2,850 3,870 1,260 3,690 250,000 3,430 1,150 3,280 * 1,690 * * 2,150 * Source: EPA 2006. * Aeration buffer greater than 4,730 ft, the maximum the model can calculate.

Even assuming EPA selects the 99 percentile whole field as the regulatory standard, only the smaller facilities using low rates would find these aeration buffers feasible, even in rural areas. Other measures would have to be taken to permit a smaller aeration buffer.

There are four primary ways ( alone or in combination) that a facility may reduce the required aeration buffer: ( 1) reduce the rate ( amount of methyl bromide / 1,000 cu ft), ( 2) fumigate smaller volumes, ( 3) install an active aeration system including stacks, and ( 4) install a capture and destruction system.

Rate Reductions: Reducing the rate may not be practical in many situations because certain pests will not be destroyed at the lower rates. Moreover, this option may not be sufficient to obtain a feasible aeration buffer. As shown in Table 5, a 100,000 cubic foot facility that halves the rate from 2 lb methyl bromide/ 1,000 cubic foot to 1 lb methyl bromide/ 1,000 cubic foot reduces the aeration buffer by less than 35%. However, the necessary buffer will still exceed the likely maximum feasible treatment buffer. Page 15 Fumigate Smaller Volumes: It may be possible for facilities to partition their curing rooms and fumigate only part at a time. The difficulty with this approach is that it will require careful sealing or insects may simply escape into a non fumigated area and immediately re infest the product. Otherwise reducing the volume to be treated would necessitate reducing the throughput of the facility and reducing revenues.

Active Aeration Systems: Active aeration involves using fans to quickly disperse the gas, often through a stack. Table 6 presents estimated buffers for different facilities and rates. The most effective system is to use a portable stack that vents the gas 200 ft from the structure. It is not clear whether this system would work for larger facilities and has not yet been modeled. Large, permanent stacks can also help to achieve reductions in the aeration buffer. However, the air exchange rate is critical.

Table 6. Estimated Aeration Buffer Zone ( feet), Active Ventilation Aeration Buffer ( ft) Site ( cubic ft) Rate ( lbs/ 1000 ft3) Air Exchange ( cu ft/ min) [ exchanges/ min] Stack Type 1 95 max 99 whole 99.9 whole 25,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 220 100 220 1 25,000 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 25,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 380 220 350 2 25,000 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 25,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 600 300 550 50,000 3 25,000 [ 0.5] Portable 0 0 0 50,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 360 210 350 50,000 [ 0.5] 50 ft 0 0 0 20,000 [ 0.2] Minimum 480 250 460 1 20,000 [ 0.2] 50 ft 150 0 140 50,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 1,040 380 910 50,000 [ 0.5] 50 ft 270 0 250 20,000 [ 0.2] Minimum 1,370 460 1,270 2 20,000 [ 0.2] 50 ft 460 220 450 50,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 1,790 550 1,600 50,000 [ 0.5] 50 ft 480 230 460 20,000 [ 0.2] Minimum 2,170 690 2,020 100,000 3 20,000 [ 0.2] 50 ft 820 370 730 125,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 840 280 740 125,000 [ 0.5] 50 ft 0 0 0 50,000 [ 0.2] Minimum 940 430 970 1 50,000 [ 0.2] 50 ft 940 230 810 125,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 1,960 510 1,710 125,000 [ 0.5] 50 ft 480 0 430 50,000 [ 0.2] 25 ft 2,380 730 2,200 2 50,000 [ 0.2] 50 ft 2,020 510 1,780 125,000 [ 0.5] Minimum 3,240 730 2,810 250,000 3 125,000 [ 0.5] 50 ft 820 300 780 Page 16 50,000 [ 0.2] 25 ft 3,880 1,140 4,730 50,000 [ 0.2] 50 ft 3,120 760 2,740 Source: EPA 2006. 1 Minimum stack is 10 feet above the highest building within 200 feet. Portable stack is 50 feet high and placed 200 feet from the building.

The cost to improve the active aeration of fumigated facilities is not known but some representative costs are available. Information submitted through the public comment process indicates that the cost of a 50 foot soft portable stack, including ducts and fittings, is approximately $ 1,000, and adding a stack to a 100,000 cubic foot warehouse would cost approximately $ 30,000. The comments did not, however, indicate the height or airflow capacity of these stacks. Fan costs range from $ 500 to $ 850 and range in capacity from 10,000 to 40,000 cubic feet per minute, but often require special engineering and design that can multiply the cost ( EPA, 2006).

Multiple fans increase air exchange in an additive fashion, therefore larger facilities may achieve sufficient air flow through a large enough stack to reduce the aeration buffer to a feasible distance. A factor in determining the viability of such an investment is that many facilities fumigate infrequently.

Capture and Destruction Technology: A capture and destruction system " scrubs" the exhaust stream to remove methyl bromide. Some of the early systems were not commercially viable, however newer systems are now available. These systems could reduce aeration buffers if the EPA regulatory scheme permits captured methyl bromide to be subtracted from total quantity used when calculating the buffer.

There are several companies that are marketing or have previously marketed methyl bromide capture and destruction systems. Currently, these systems are primarily marketed for small commodity and quarantine treatments. Based on available information, it is not clear to what extent they would be feasible for structures such as curing sheds.

However, even if some proportion of the methyl bromide could be captured, the estimated aeration buffer could be reduced substantially. Further, these systems reduce the amount of methyl bromide released into the atmosphere and could have an impact on ozone depletion.

BEAD concludes that aeration zones are not likely to cause significant impacts on dry cured pork facilities because active aeration, with a stack, appears feasible and capture and destruction technology has improved and could offer an additional means of reducing the amount of methyl bromide vented into the air.

CONCLUSION BEAD does not expect significant impacts to result from lowering the air concentration limit of occupational exposure from five ( 5) ppm as a ceiling to one ( 1) ppm as a 8 hour time weighted average, provided facilities have the option to utilize air purifying respirators to protect employees when air concentrations are between these points. BEAD also does not expect Page 17 significant impacts if EPA were to require Fumigation Management Plans ( FMP) and other actions that focus on compliance and/ or enforcement.

It appears that by using active aeration most dry cured pork facilities would be able to accommodate aeration buffers. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the 99 percentile whole field buffer is used for the regulatory decision making. Further, because curing facilities tend to be located in rural areas and may not need to have employees working other processes during fumigation, treatment buffers are likely to be feasible as well There may be some curing facilities that will need to modify their current practices to meet the proposed buffer requirements. There are several ways to meet these requirements; for example, site specific modeling can be used by the facilities to select methods to implement that would result in the reduction of buffers. In most cases, facilities could potentially achieve the greatest buffer reduction by using a combination of methods. Treatment buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved gas retention, lower rates or treating smaller volumes of commodities. Aeration buffers may be reduced by methods such as improved ventilation systems ( greater air exchanges per minute, taller stacks), lower rates, treating smaller volumes, or installing a capture and destruction system. However, these changes will entail some costs.

However, if curing facility cannot meet the buffer requirements, even with the adoption of additional equipment, they would not be able to use methyl bromide. Since 2005, use of methyl bromide is only permitted under the Montreal Protocol for certain uses, including those that have been designated as a critical need. EPA and USDA have evaluated exemption requests and found that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in this sector ( USA, 2006a, 2006b). Therefore, if buffers are infeasible, some facilities may have to cease operation. This may impact producers and consumers, as well as the local economy. BEAD does not have adequate data about the specific site characteristics of these facilities to quantify the distribution and magnitude of these impacts. However, BEAD anticipates that by using a combination of mitigation options most facilities will be able to meet the buffer requirements.

REFERENCES CAL DPR. 2006. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting ( PUR) data base. Available at http:// www. cdpr. ca. gov/ docs/ pur/ purmain. htm EPA. 2003. Industrial Economics, Incorporated report entitled: Financial Profiles and Alternative Costs Report 2002 Methyl Bromide CUE Application from Post Harvest/ Structure Users for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs ( 7503C).

EPA. 2006. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Docket on Methyl Bromide Risk Assessment for Fumigant Pesticide. Docket No. EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123. Available at http:// www. regulations. gov . Page 18 U. S. Census. 2002. Meat Processed from Carcasses: 2002 Economic Census. Manufacturing, Industry Series. Available at: http:// www. census. gov/ prod/ ec02/ ec0231i311612. pdf U. S. Census Bureau. 2000. Urban and Rural Classification. Available at http:// www. census. gov/ geo/ www/ ua/ ua_ 2k. html United States of America. 2006. Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use in Ham ( Submitted in 2006 for 2008 Use Season). Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ 2008_ nomination. html.


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50854-50856]
[DOCID:fr18au10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0762; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-011-AD;
Amendment 39-16393; AD 2010-17-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 767-300 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Model 767-300 series airplanes. This AD requires replacing a wire
bundle clamp and installing a tetrafluoroethylene (TFE 2X) sleeve. This
AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We
are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of a wiring bundle, which could
result in a high-energy short and, consequently, a possible ignition
source in the center auxiliary fuel tank.

DATES: This AD is effective September 2, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 2,
2010.
    We must receive comments on this AD by October 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-
65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; extension
1, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://
www.myboeingfleet.com.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6500; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a
regulation titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule
included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88,''
Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to
adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary
to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of
operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable
conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address
the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in
combination with a latent condition(s), and in-service failure
experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included
consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for
further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are
necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
    We received a report that, during a review of production records,
it was found that three airplanes did not receive a tetrafluoroethylene
(TFE 2X) sleeve and a clamp as part of an in-production version of the
actions required by AD 2009-18-02, Amendment 39-15998 (74 FR 43621,
August 27, 2009). The TFE 2X sleeve and the clamp are designed to
prevent chafing of a wiring bundle located along a fuel tank boundary
structure and to provide additional electrical isolation from the fuel
tank. Chafing of that wiring bundle and insufficient electrical
isolation, when combined, could result in a high-energy short and,
consequently, a potential ignition source in the center auxiliary fuel
tank.

Related Rulemaking

    AD 2009-18-02 (which applies to certain Model 767-200, -300, -300F,
and -400ER series airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletins 767-
57A0100, Revision 1, dated June 19, 2008, and 767-57A0102, Revision 1,
dated November 27, 2007), requires sealing certain fasteners and
stiffeners in the fuel tank, changing certain wire bundle clamp
configurations on the fuel tank walls, inspecting certain fasteners in
the fuel tanks and to determine the method of attachment of the vortex
generators, and corrective action if necessary.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0122, dated
October 22, 2009. The service bulletin describes procedures for
installing a tetrafluoroethylene (TFE 2X) sleeve and a wire bundle
clamp.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    No airplanes affected by this AD are on the U.S. Register. We are
issuing this AD because the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design
that could be registered in the United States in the future. This AD
requires the actions described in the service bulletin.
    Since no airplanes are affected by this AD, notice and opportunity
for public comment before issuing this AD are unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2010-0762; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-011-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2010-17-03 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16393. Docket No. FAA-
2010-0762; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-011-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 2,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 series
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0122, dated October 22, 2009.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to chafing of the wiring bundle, which could result in a high-energy
short and, consequently, a possible ignition source in the center
auxiliary fuel tank.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Installation

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
install a tetrafluoroethylene (TFE 2X) sleeve and a wire bundle
clamp, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0122, dated October 22, 2009.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Margaret Langsted, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0122,
dated October 22, 2009, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19707 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P